Talk:Construction modularization from a lean perspective

Revision as of 23:02, 22 September 2015

LasseHoier87 reviewer 2

First impression is good, especially the use of a real life case is nice. The layout is thought through and seems to “guide” the reader through the topic. However, it could be "spiced" a bit up if there were some nice pictures, illustrations or even a video. This would "catch" the reader more i think.

Formal aspects: (Wiki article Peer Review template is used)

• The article is as clearly stated in the article following a “case study”
• No gramma faults or spelling.
• Written in a fine engaging style, The sentence is too long and may be a bit too much direct style. Use more formal style.
• No illustrations at all, you mention a video on youtube why not use that one. Maybe the figures showing the building or similar.
• No figures
• No figures
• No figures
• No figures therefore no copyright issue
• I think the overall wiki formation of the article is fine.

Content aspects:

• For practitioners it is a relevant article, because the topic is very relevant .
• It is not specific related to PPPM. However, the idea lean and critical path is used in project management and scheduling.
• The length of the article is fine. I don’t think it should be longer, but maybe a bit more in the “Preface” and maybe it is too basic.
• I think the overall red thread is fine and the article seems coherent.
• The starting summary is good and works fine, but I think the “preface” and “abstact” could be merged together and be more precise in terms of starting the “red thread”.
• The reference is missing.
• I find it hard to say which material has been used. There should be a clear list of reference and link into the text.
• There is no section “annotated bibliography”.
• As far as I noticed, there were no link to other APPPM wiki article. But links to websites, that is fine.
• Own opinion is clearly stated in “ reflections on practice of modularization in the construction sector”
• There is no reason to think there is any type of plagiarism

[[ (S142899_I am not aware of whether I am reviewer ½ or 3) References are missing summary at the end. A) Not many grammatical or spelling mistakes! 1. BSB term should be explained before used in the ABSTRACT PARAGRAPH 2.I would suggest in general to create less complex and smaller sentences throughout the article in order to avoid confusion for the reader 3. Under Board Sustainable Building Co.Ltd paragraph there is a space mistake “ The2008..” and use past tense as well. 4.Also the numbering can become simpler not 1…..1….2….1 but instead.1……1.1….2…….2.1 5. Reference at the end of TH30 HOTEL, Modular Constructions impact on critical path, paragraph is missing? 6 . In the paragraphs under BSB's prefabrication technology reference is missing 7. In lean Construction paragraph double “. . “ error and gap after “.” Exist also in the second paragraph. Also reference is missing. 8. Under BCB projects analyzed from a lean perspective paragraph data is rmentioned without reference. 9. “Broad Organization” in paragraph Reflections on practice of modularization in the construction sector could be with small letters B) 1.Preface and Abstract probably should be in one paragraph 2.Logical paragraph flow without overlapping. 3.I would create a paragraph that incorporates the paragraphs: 3 Broad Group,4 Broad Sustainable Building Co. Ltd., 5 T30 Hotel and name it “case T30 description” C) 1.Congrats on summing up info and referring on them in Board Group paragraph. Especially the summing up paragraph illustrates a critical support of the theory in combination of this case study. 2. I would add the “T30 HOTEL CASE STUDY” in the title of the article probably]]