Talk:Dealing with conflict in project management
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | Yes, Yes the flow is very | + | Yes, Yes the flow is very good- there are good transitions from one step to another. Yes and nothinh. |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | I haven't spot any errors and I believe that | + | I haven't spot any errors and I believe that it's pretty precise. I believe there is nothing to improve |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | Yes, Yes, the figures give a | + | Yes, Yes, the figures give a very good contributions to the article and help to better understand the content- like in case of Conflict Stages. Big plus for that. |
Nothing to improve | Nothing to improve | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | I believe it is relevant, especially | + | I believe it is relevant, especially for us students . |
| − | Yes | + | Yes it is made clear why it is relevant in the state-of-the-art section 'Why focus on conflicts?'. |
Nothing | Nothing | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | + | I think there are small issues with the citing: | |
| − | I think | + | It should be formatted according to the one of the standards |
| + | I believe there is a more proper way of putting few abbreviations to the same source. | ||
| + | Please look into the book from Soren Jensen that we used while we wrote the thesis. | ||
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''== | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''== | ||
Revision as of 16:30, 18 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Good
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Relatively easy to grasp, but work still needs to be done to explain conflict in the context of project management to ensure reader understanding
Purpose explanation Abstract is too short and can be improved:
- Who is the reader? Project manager or any project team member?
- What will the reader learn/get out of reading the article?
- Briefly describe the structure of the article in the abstract to set reader expectations once there is a clearer picture of the article content
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article It is relevant. Consider the following:
- Try to link it to a knowledge area of project management (if that is the direction) e.g. Project Human Resource Management
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project/program/portfolio management community more than a normal web search
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Piotr
Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary: Good
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 1
Yes, nothing.
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 the flow is very good- there are good transitions from one step to another. Yes and nothinh.
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
I haven't spot any errors and I believe that it's pretty precise. I believe there is nothing to improve
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
Yes, Yes, the figures give a very good contributions to the article and help to better understand the content- like in case of Conflict Stages. Big plus for that. Nothing to improve
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
I believe it is relevant, especially for us students . Yes it is made clear why it is relevant in the state-of-the-art section 'Why focus on conflicts?'. Nothing
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
Yes, yes, nothing.
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
I think there are small issues with the citing: It should be formatted according to the one of the standards I believe there is a more proper way of putting few abbreviations to the same source. Please look into the book from Soren Jensen that we used while we wrote the thesis.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
