Talk:Critical reflection on Project Portfolio Management software
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
m (→Val review) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*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 | *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 | ||
| − | *It is hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2 | + | *It is hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2. You can add a caption using Wiki formatting. |
*"Executives" or "executives? I think you should choose one of the writing and use the same for the whole article | *"Executives" or "executives? I think you should choose one of the writing and use the same for the whole article | ||
Revision as of 17:21, 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. You can add a caption using Wiki formatting.
- "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?
