Talk:Meetings Management
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Lukasz Marczuk) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Marianne Delp''== | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Marianne Delp (reviewed 18/02)''== |
| − | ===Question 1 | + | ===Question 1 === |
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Difficult to answer and come with improvements since the wiki-article only contains abstract and a couple of sentences about the meeting roles and The 3 Stages of Meetings. But one question here could be that you mention 'Meeting Management' can be used in project management, but can it also be implemented in project and program management? Why/Why not? Or conclude that your article focuses is only on Project Management.'' |
| − | ===Question 2 | + | ===Question 2 === |
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Difficult to answer and come with improvements since the wiki-article only contains abstract and a couple of sentences about the meeting roles and The 3 Stages of Meetings'' |
| − | ===Question 3 | + | ===Question 3 === |
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Grammar is good, and good length of sentences. Presise language. No improvement suggestions here.'' |
| − | ===Question 4 | + | ===Question 4 === |
'''Figures and tables:''' | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''No figures in the article'' |
| − | ===Question 5 | + | ===Question 5 === |
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''This is well explained in the abstract. Good! ' |
| − | ===Question 6 | + | ===Question 6 === |
'''Depth of treatment:''' | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Relevant for practitioner to read! Improvements are to add more sources, that you'll probably do when the article is finished' |
| − | ===Question 7 | + | ===Question 7 === |
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The two sources referred to in the article seems legit and reliable. One of the sources is referring to American empirical data regarding the subject - good!'' |
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Lukasz Marczuk''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The summary is conducted well, it is difficult to verify how it contributes to the entire article, since it is not finished.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The introduced structure seems logical and well planed, unfortunately it is not possible to verify further, due to lack of content.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Since article is not finished, it is not possible to verify it. For the exiting part, no errors were detected.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There are no figures nor tables present in the article.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Article not finished.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Article not finished.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Article not finished.'' |
Latest revision as of 19:43, 24 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Good, but try to write shorter and more concise scentences
Description of the tool/theory/concept Easy to follow
Purpose explanation Elaborate on the purpose of the article - what will the reader get out of this/learn? Briefly explain the structure of the article in the abstract to set reader expectations
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Consider the following:
- Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
- Add more context around project management e.g. meetings the Project Manager organizes and leads with the project steering group
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Marianne Delp (reviewed 18/02)
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
Difficult to answer and come with improvements since the wiki-article only contains abstract and a couple of sentences about the meeting roles and The 3 Stages of Meetings. But one question here could be that you mention 'Meeting Management' can be used in project management, but can it also be implemented in project and program management? Why/Why not? Or conclude that your article focuses is only on Project Management.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
Difficult to answer and come with improvements since the wiki-article only contains abstract and a couple of sentences about the meeting roles and The 3 Stages of Meetings
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
Grammar is good, and good length of sentences. Presise language. No improvement suggestions here.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
No figures in the article
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
This is well explained in the abstract. Good! '
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
Relevant for practitioner to read! Improvements are to add more sources, that you'll probably do when the article is finished'
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
The two sources referred to in the article seems legit and reliable. One of the sources is referring to American empirical data regarding the subject - good!
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Lukasz Marczuk
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
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?
[edit] Answer 1
The summary is conducted well, it is difficult to verify how it contributes to the entire article, since it is not finished.
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
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?
[edit] Answer 2
The introduced structure seems logical and well planed, unfortunately it is not possible to verify further, due to lack of content.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
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?
[edit] Answer 3
Since article is not finished, it is not possible to verify it. For the exiting part, no errors were detected.
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
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?
[edit] Answer 4
There are no figures nor tables present in the article.
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
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?
[edit] Answer 5
Article not finished.
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
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?
[edit] Answer 6
Article not finished.
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
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?
[edit] Answer 7
Article not finished.
