Talk:Future Workshop
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→Abstract Feedback) |
(→Abstract Feedback) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
'''Language''' Good | '''Language''' Good | ||
| − | '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good and easy to follow, but how does this relate to project | + | '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good and easy to follow, but how does this relate to project management rather than just organizational management or day-to-day problem solving at work? This should be emphasized and clarified in the abstract |
'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but can be improved once the article scope is narrowed down to a project management knowledge area or areas. Consider briefly explaining the structure of the article and the points to be discussed to set the reader's expectations from the beginning | '''Purpose explanation''' Good, but can be improved once the article scope is narrowed down to a project management knowledge area or areas. Consider briefly explaining the structure of the article and the points to be discussed to set the reader's expectations from the beginning | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
<ol> | <ol> | ||
| − | <li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor | + | <li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc? |
<li> What kind of issues can be tackled using future workshop? | <li> What kind of issues can be tackled using future workshop? | ||
| − | <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community | + | <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community rather than a normal web search |
</ol> | </ol> | ||
Latest revision as of 21:40, 13 February 2018
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good and easy to follow, but how does this relate to project management rather than just organizational management or day-to-day problem solving at work? This should be emphasized and clarified in the abstract
Purpose explanation Good, but can be improved once the article scope is narrowed down to a project management knowledge area or areas. Consider briefly explaining the structure of the article and the points to be discussed to set the reader's expectations from the beginning
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Consider the following:
- Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
- What kind of issues can be tackled using future workshop?
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community rather than a normal web search
