Talk:Manage Extreme Projects with Rapid Methodology

Revision as of 18:34, 28 September 2015

Review given by StephSalling, review2

Formal aspects

• The article follows the “method” structure very well.
  • ✓
• There are some grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors, maybe an extra proofreading would be a good idea (maybe by someone else, it is often helpful having a second pair of eyes read it through).
  • I have to say that I absolutely agree with you. After extra proofreading I made same changes that, I think, made the text more understandable and easier to follow.
• The article is written in an engaging style in terms of content, but some sentences are a bit long and hard to follow.
  • Same I said above applies here :)
• The figure is very illustrative, but a reference to the source for it might be a good idea. More figures would improve the reading experience, but I do not know if it is possible to find other relevant figures.
  • I drew the figure myself but I was inspired from DeCarlo's book so as you said it is a good idea to reference it. I also added a new figure to illustrate the uncertainty explained in the second section. Good suggestion.
• Very nice use of table and bullet points.

Content aspects

• I think the article is interesting for a practitioner.
• The topic is clear and specific.
• The length of the article seems appropriate.

• There is a red thread through the article, however, the transition from XPM to Rapid Methodology could be smoother.
  • I don't exactly know what you mean by "red thread" but I tried to make a more smoother transition with a short introduction.
• The starting summary is sufficient and not too long.
  • ✓
• Your sources seem good and of high quality. You could maybe elaborate some of them (the “annotated bibliography” part).
  • ✓ I forgot to annotate the bibliography like the assignment says, thank you for telling!
• The use of the word “we” in some sentences is a bit confusing for me as it mixes up your “own opinion” with statements substantiated by literature.
  • ✓ Even though I only found one "we" you are right, it sounded a little confusing so I rewrite not only this sentence but also other statements that sounded own opinion while were not. Thank you for the constructive feedback.

Reviewer 3: s141586

In general, very good article with an interesting topic and good flow, but needs improvement.

Formal:
• The article follows a clear “method” structure.
• In general, too long sentences. I have detected many grammatical errors, needs proofreading.

• As I said to the reviewer 1, I have to say that you are also absolutely right. After extra proofreading I made same changes that, I think, made the text more understandable and easy to follow. Regarding the grammatical errors, I found some misspelling and mismatching between verb and subject. Hope it looks better now.

• The use of the form “we” it does not sounds very good in an academic article, I would rather use the passive form to express the same (Overview section)

• This was also suggested for reviewer one, and I agree with you both. The sentence has been rewritten.

• Well-referenced and good use of quotes from authors.
• Some more figures would be useful

• ✓

• Well formatted. Wiki references.

Content:
• It is a very interesting topic for a practitioner, but I have the feeling that some of the statements are being repeated in too many paragraphs (specially the ones defining the XPM).
• The length seems to be ok, even that is around 2500 words. It has a good flow.

• ✓ After your suggestions some text has been added so now it is nearly 3000.

• I miss a “limitations” paragraph, were you explain the weaknesses of the XPM or when to apply it.

• The limitations where kind of defined in the discussion but maybe not developed enough. I rewrote this section and I believe that now the limitations are more detailed. Good suggestion.

• In general, I think it is a good idea to find some examples of XPM projects, and explain a little about one or two cases.
• I think it would be good to describe each of the sources with few lines, explaining about the paper and the author.

• ✓ I forgot to annotate the bibliography like the assignment says, thank you for telling!

• It is hard to distinguish between your opinion and the theory; maybe you should clarify it in the discussion section.

• Good point. I hope that the changes made improved this aspect.

S141926. Thank you both for your constructive and clear reviews. They have been very useful to improve the article.