Talk:DMAIC

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Feedback on Abstract:)
(→‎Answer 4)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
 
|'''References'''|| Make sure to add references wherever needed.
 
|'''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.
 +
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Maria Christina Prokou''==
 +
===Question 1 · TEXT===
 +
'''Quality of the summary:'''
 +
 +
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
''Yes
 +
 +
-''
 +
 +
===Question 2 · TEXT===
 +
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
 +
 +
Is the argument clear?
 +
 +
Is there a logical flow to the article?
 +
 +
Does one part build upon the other?
 +
 +
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 2===
 +
''Yes
 +
 +
Yes
 +
 +
Yes
 +
 +
-''
 +
 +
===Question 3 · TEXT===
 +
'''Grammar and style:'''
 +
 +
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
 +
 +
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 3===
 +
''Yes
 +
 +
Yes
 +
 +
-''
 +
 +
===Question 4 · TEXT===
 +
'''Figures and tables:'''
 +
 +
Are figures and tables clear?
 +
 +
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 4===
 +
''The figure is clear but it is too big
 +
 +
Yes
 +
 +
Maybe add some description below figure ''
 +
 +
===Question 5 · TEXT===
 +
'''Interest and relevance:'''
 +
 +
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
 +
 +
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 5===
 +
''Medium
 +
 +
Yes''
 +
 +
===Question 6 · TEXT===
 +
'''Depth of treatment:'''
 +
 +
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
 +
 +
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 6===
 +
''Medium
 +
 +
Yes''
 +
 +
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 +
'''Annotated bibliography:'''
 +
 +
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
 +
 +
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
 +
 +
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 7===
 +
''Yes
 +
 +
There is no annotated bibliography
 +
 +
No
 +
 +
Add some annotated bibliography ''

Latest revision as of 12:14, 25 February 2019

Contents

[edit] 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.


[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Maria Christina Prokou

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

Yes

-

[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 2

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 3

Yes

Yes

-

[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 4

The figure is clear but it is too big

Yes

Maybe add some description below figure

[edit] Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 5

Medium

Yes

[edit] Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 6

Medium

Yes

[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 7

Yes

There is no annotated bibliography

No

Add some annotated bibliography

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:DMAIC&oldid=66550"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox