Talk:Due Diligence on Wind Farm Assets
(→Answer 7) |
|||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | I would | + | I would emphasize the relation between the Due Diligence and the project management. |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| − | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly |
| − | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? |
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| − | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? yes |
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? yes | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? yes | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | - | |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Depth of treatment:''' | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | I would suggest some tools that can help during the Due Diligence. | |
| − | + | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| Line 99: | Line 98: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | I would add a linked references | + | I would add a linked references and I would add the reference of the figure. |
| − | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Evgenia Chatzivasileiou''== | |
| − | ==Feedback | + | |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| − | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | + | Well established.It emphasizes all the key features. | |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| − | Is the argument clear? | + | Is the argument clear? Yes |
| − | Is there a logical flow to the article? | + | Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes |
| − | Does one part build upon the other? | + | Does one part build upon the other? Yes |
| − | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | ' | + | I would emphasize more on this Projects' safety barries, because I believe is really interesting and relevant. But I can understand that there are more data to be added in future. |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| − | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes |
| − | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Mostly |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | - | |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Figures and tables:''' | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| − | Are figures and tables clear? | + | Are figures and tables clear? Yes |
| − | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Mostly |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | It would be nice if one ore two more figures be added. The figure that already exists is really analytical and helpful for the reader to understand the risks better, but a reference needs to be added. | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| − | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes |
| − | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | - | |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Depth of treatment:''' | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| − | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes |
| − | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | I would suggest to add a framework on stakeholder and managerial role | |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| − | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes |
| − | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No |
| − | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | + | References need to be added properly | |
Latest revision as of 23:10, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | Missing. An explanation of the article purpose and eventually the target group should be highlighted. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Irrelevant at this point. A clear link to project/program/portfolio management still needs to be made (e.g. project business case etc). This article shouldn't focus on investment management. |
| References | Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
I would put some words in bold, in this way the reading is easier.
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
Does one part build upon the other? Yes
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
I would emphasize the relation between the Due Diligence and the project management.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
It appears to me that there are some repetitions and in one sentence the tenses don't match.
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear? yes
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
I would add some more figures
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? yes
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
-
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
I would suggest some tools that can help during the Due Diligence.
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
I would add a linked references and I would add the reference of the figure.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Evgenia Chatzivasileiou
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
Well established.It emphasizes all the key features.
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
Does one part build upon the other? Yes
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
I would emphasize more on this Projects' safety barries, because I believe is really interesting and relevant. But I can understand that there are more data to be added in future.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Mostly
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
-
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear? Yes
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Mostly
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
It would be nice if one ore two more figures be added. The figure that already exists is really analytical and helpful for the reader to understand the risks better, but a reference needs to be added.
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
-
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
I would suggest to add a framework on stakeholder and managerial role
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
References need to be added properly
