Talk:DMAIC
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Mads Mohr Madsen | Mads Mohr Madsen | ||
| + | |||
Question 1 | Question 1 | ||
Quality of the summary: | Quality of the summary: | ||
Revision as of 20:36, 24 February 2019
Feedback on Abstract:
I'm unsure whether or not your abstract at this point is complete, however find my feedback below.
| Text clarity & language | Good, however there's a few mistakes (e.g. "it is almost impossible to measure and improve, if you do now know where to start." - you probably meant "if you do not know where to start.") |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | Well elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Make sure to add references wherever needed. |
Mads Mohr Madsen
Question 1 Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
- A: Yes.
What would you suggest to improve?
- A:
Question 2
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
- A: yes
Is there a logical flow to the article?
- A: yes
Does one part build upon the other?
- A: yes
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
- A: yes
What would you suggest to improve?
- A: stucture is fine
Question 3
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
- A: yes
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
- A: yes
Question 4 Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear?
- A: its quite big. However, are you sure you are allowed to use it? Maybe check this with the TA's.
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
- A: yes
What would you suggest to improve?
- A: talk more about the figure, rather than just "check the figure if you need to see when to use this tool"
Question 5
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
- A: medium
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
- A: no. There could have been more about when to use this method and when not to, pros and cons stuff like that.
Question 6
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
- A: no
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
- A: no
Question 7
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
- A: yes
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
- A: no and there is mainly websites, where as in this course they have said quite clearly that they prefer books.
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
- A: Yes
General comment: I think it is a fine article, however I think it is introducing a lot of tools very briefly. I think a discussion on when to use these or a deeper presentation of some of the tools would make it a lot stronger.
