Talk:Lencioni’s pyramid of team dysfunctions

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Matthew Wells

Question 1

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? N/A as article is currently incomplete...

What would you suggest to improve? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Question 2

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Is there a logical flow to the article? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Does one part build upon the other? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

What would you suggest to improve? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Question 3

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

What would you suggest to improve? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Question 4

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

What would you suggest to improve? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Question 5

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

What would you suggest to improve? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Question 6

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

What would you suggest to improve? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Question 7

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

What would you suggest to improve? N/A as article is currently incomplete.

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here

Question 1

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

Question 2

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

Question 3

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

Question 4

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

Question 5

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

Question 6

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

Question 7

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