Talk:Construction modularization from a lean perspective

From apppm
Revision as of 22:47, 22 September 2015 by Lassehoier87 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

LasseHoier87 reviewer 2

First impression is good, especially the use of illustrations is good. The layout is thought through and seems to “guide” the reader through the topic.

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



Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox