|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Feedback on Abstract:==
| |
| | | | |
| − | {|
| |
| − | |'''Text clarity'''|| Good
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Language'''|| Good
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Purpose explanation'''|| Good
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Title of the Wiki'''|| Good
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Relevant
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Other'''|| I know you got the title from the Excel sheet but consider only writing about evolutionary purpose in project management or program management and not both
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Srdjan Gluhovic''==
| |
| − | ===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''
| |
