Talk:Critical reflection on Project Portfolio Management software

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Val review ==
 
== Val review ==
  
 
+
I would like to start saying that I learnt something reading your article, which is a good point.
 
+
The structure is logical and you manage to turn the complexity of your topic into an easy reading article.
===Content aspects===
+
I divided my feedback in 3 categories that are the following:
 
+
*"Even though Cooper R. argues that poor tools are better than no tools I would argue that a tool that distorts the result is worse."?
+
*"From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" % of what?
+
*Conclusion?
+
  
 
===Formal aspects===
 
===Formal aspects===
  
*use of references
+
*You should try to introduce the wiki format for references [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners] You can also have a look to other articles who use it
 
*figure 1 is missing
 
*figure 1 is missing
*hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2
+
*It is hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2
*"Executives" or "executives? You should choose one of the writting
+
*"Executives" or "executives? I think you should choose one of the writing and use the same for the whole article
  
 
===Grammar and Spelling===
 
===Grammar and Spelling===
 +
 +
Few errors here. To find them, use the research tool.
 +
 
*deferral instead of deferal
 
*deferral instead of deferal
*" As Lee Merkhofer consulting states. It is not beneficial for software developers to make advanced PPM software targeting niche markets."?
+
*"As Lee Merkhofer consulting states. It is not beneficial for software developers to make advanced PPM software targeting niche markets."?
 
*"The bottom line is that even though PPM decision making software is adapted by many companies it fail"s" to gain user acceptance."
 
*"The bottom line is that even though PPM decision making software is adapted by many companies it fail"s" to gain user acceptance."
 +
 +
===Content aspects===
 +
 +
*Your article is mostly didactic but sometimes you take strong positions like in this sentence: "Even though Cooper R. argues that poor tools are better than no tools I would argue that a tool that distorts the result is worse." Maybe you should stay pedagogic.
 +
*"From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" => % of what?
 +
*Your article misses maybe a conclusion?

Revision as of 17:18, 25 November 2014

Contents

Val review

I would like to start saying that I learnt something reading your article, which is a good point. The structure is logical and you manage to turn the complexity of your topic into an easy reading article. I divided my feedback in 3 categories that are the following:

Formal aspects

  • You should try to introduce the wiki format for references [1] You can also have a look to other articles who use it
  • figure 1 is missing
  • It is hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2
  • "Executives" or "executives? I think you should choose one of the writing and use the same for the whole article

Grammar and Spelling

Few errors here. To find them, use the research tool.

  • deferral instead of deferal
  • "As Lee Merkhofer consulting states. It is not beneficial for software developers to make advanced PPM software targeting niche markets."?
  • "The bottom line is that even though PPM decision making software is adapted by many companies it fail"s" to gain user acceptance."

Content aspects

  • Your article is mostly didactic but sometimes you take strong positions like in this sentence: "Even though Cooper R. argues that poor tools are better than no tools I would argue that a tool that distorts the result is worse." Maybe you should stay pedagogic.
  • "From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" => % of what?
  • Your article misses maybe a conclusion?
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox