Talk:Managing Successful Programmes (MSP)
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
'''Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?:''' | '''Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?:''' | ||
The topic is relevant for project managers and the purpose is clearly articulated. | The topic is relevant for project managers and the purpose is clearly articulated. | ||
| − | |||
'''Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable?''' | '''Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable?''' | ||
| − | + | The article explains well how the tool works but could provide a more hands on guideline for the readers (project managers) on how they use it. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | The figure is a good illustration and used to support the text nicely. Be aware the a figure number is missing in the text ("Figure X"). The flow is logic and there is a coherence and consistancy throughout. Grammar and spelling is fine. A few sentences are really long and could maybe be shorter. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
'''Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible?''' | '''Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible?''' | ||
Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-) | Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-) | ||
Revision as of 20:41, 18 February 2018
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Good
Language Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the he main idea is to sub-divide..." - remove "he"?
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but consider going back to basics. Define what program management is and reference standards/mandatory list of references to add credibility. Also, is it true that all organizations need good program management? Also, what defines a successful program?
Purpose explanation Good and sets up the reader's expectations well
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Consider the following:
- Who is the reader? Program Manager etc?
- What will the reader get out of this?
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the program management community more than a normal web search
Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018)
Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?: The topic is relevant for project managers and the purpose is clearly articulated.
Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable? The article explains well how the tool works but could provide a more hands on guideline for the readers (project managers) on how they use it.
The figure is a good illustration and used to support the text nicely. Be aware the a figure number is missing in the text ("Figure X"). The flow is logic and there is a coherence and consistancy throughout. Grammar and spelling is fine. A few sentences are really long and could maybe be shorter.
Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible? Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-)
