Talk:Gantt Charts as a Tool for Project Management
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "Josef: Hello, I like the idea for your article. Please make sure to follow the suggested structure for "method" articles.") |
DanielKrogh (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Josef: Hello, I like the idea for your article. Please make sure to follow the suggested structure for "method" articles. | Josef: Hello, I like the idea for your article. Please make sure to follow the suggested structure for "method" articles. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Reviewer 3: DanielKrogh | ||
| + | |||
| + | ;Formal aspects | ||
| + | * The structure of the article is made as expected from type 1 article. | ||
| + | * There is few errors in the text. Be careful to use daily speaking language like e.g. “didn’t” instead for did not. | ||
| + | * The sentences are well formulated are in the right length. | ||
| + | * All the important points in the article are illustrated in figures. | ||
| + | * It is easy to understand the figures and they are well explained. | ||
| + | * Almost every figure is referenced in the text, but where Figure 1? Make sure that each figure has its own number and are referenced in the text. | ||
| + | * All the figures is referenced. | ||
| + | * There is a lack of sub-headings which could be made easily. The figures size are proper and does not need to edited. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ;Content aspects | ||
| + | * It is a highly interesting topic and hence it is relevant for a practitioner. | ||
| + | * The length of the article is as expected. | ||
| + | * The flow of the article has a logical structure and have no comments on that. | ||
| + | * The summary fitted fine for this size of a project and highlighted the most important things. | ||
| + | * I do not have access to the reference list, so I cannot comment on that. | ||
| + | * The author has begun to make an annotated bibliography but is not finished yet. | ||
| + | * The overall impression is that there is no trace of plagiarism. | ||
| + | It is a very interesting topic, but also very relevant. If I should come with any suggestions, it would be if there could be an example of any real life cases where it went good/bad. The article is easy to read and the flow is good. | ||
Revision as of 20:51, 22 September 2015
Josef: Hello, I like the idea for your article. Please make sure to follow the suggested structure for "method" articles.
Reviewer 3: DanielKrogh
- Formal aspects
- The structure of the article is made as expected from type 1 article.
- There is few errors in the text. Be careful to use daily speaking language like e.g. “didn’t” instead for did not.
- The sentences are well formulated are in the right length.
- All the important points in the article are illustrated in figures.
- It is easy to understand the figures and they are well explained.
- Almost every figure is referenced in the text, but where Figure 1? Make sure that each figure has its own number and are referenced in the text.
- All the figures is referenced.
- There is a lack of sub-headings which could be made easily. The figures size are proper and does not need to edited.
- Content aspects
- It is a highly interesting topic and hence it is relevant for a practitioner.
- The length of the article is as expected.
- The flow of the article has a logical structure and have no comments on that.
- The summary fitted fine for this size of a project and highlighted the most important things.
- I do not have access to the reference list, so I cannot comment on that.
- The author has begun to make an annotated bibliography but is not finished yet.
- The overall impression is that there is no trace of plagiarism.
It is a very interesting topic, but also very relevant. If I should come with any suggestions, it would be if there could be an example of any real life cases where it went good/bad. The article is easy to read and the flow is good.
