Talk:Dependency in project management
Bartlomiej (Talk | contribs) (→Answer 1) |
Bartlomiej (Talk | contribs) (→Answer 7) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Bartlomiej Tyczynski''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | there is some but I would recommend to explain it more | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 53: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | language is fine | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 64: | Line 66: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | two figures which show the point of the section | ||
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 76: | Line 79: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | it is relevant but needs deeper explanation | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 88: | Line 92: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | It might be if you make broaden description in the following part of the article | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 102: | Line 107: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | good references | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Bashir Isse''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 112: | Line 118: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The abstract is a bit too short but leads to the topic. It could be elaborated a bit more to get a better idea of the topic.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 128: | Line 134: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The topic is described briefly it could be elaborated more on what types of dependencies there are. PDM is briefly explained.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 140: | Line 146: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Some small grammar errors. Check for commas etc.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 152: | Line 158: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Figures summarize key points mentioned in the topic'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 164: | Line 170: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It is relevant but needs to be structured and elaborated on further'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 176: | Line 182: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''As mentioned above it can be if it is elaborated on further'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 190: | Line 196: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Well referenced but an annotated bibliography section is missing'' |
Latest revision as of 20:38, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. However the four types of dependency could be quickly listed in the abstract. |
| Article purpose explanation | Missing. An explanation of the article purpose and eventually the target group should be highlighted. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant. |
| References | Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Bartlomiej Tyczynski
[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
Answer here In the article there are clearly covered aspects mentioned in the abstract. I recommend to explain why it is important for projects.
[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
Answer here there is some but I would recommend to explain it more
[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
Answer here language is fine
[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
Answer here two figures which show the point of the section
[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
Answer here it is relevant but needs deeper explanation
[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
Answer here It might be if you make broaden description in the following part of the article
[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
Answer here good references
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Bashir Isse
[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
The abstract is a bit too short but leads to the topic. It could be elaborated a bit more to get a better idea of the topic.
[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
The topic is described briefly it could be elaborated more on what types of dependencies there are. PDM is briefly explained.
[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
Some small grammar errors. Check for commas etc.
[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
Figures summarize key points mentioned in the topic
[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
It is relevant but needs to be structured and elaborated on further
[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
As mentioned above it can be if it is elaborated on further
[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
Well referenced but an annotated bibliography section is missing
