Talk:Modularisation: A modern process for project management
Adam.pekala (Talk | contribs) |
Adam.pekala (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Josef: Thank you, I like the idea. I would suggest to focus on either "product modularization" or "process modularization" to give your article more focus. Of course, the relationship between the two is also very interesting, but that may get a bit too broad for your article to discuss all three aspects in one "go". | Josef: Thank you, I like the idea. I would suggest to focus on either "product modularization" or "process modularization" to give your article more focus. Of course, the relationship between the two is also very interesting, but that may get a bit too broad for your article to discuss all three aspects in one "go". | ||
| − | Adam.pekala (reviewer 2) - | + | '''Adam.pekala (reviewer 2) article accessed 2015-09-22 20:00:'''<br> |
The article is very nicely started with good abstract and key words. It gives a really nice overview on what the article is going to be about and creates a desire to read through – well done! | The article is very nicely started with good abstract and key words. It gives a really nice overview on what the article is going to be about and creates a desire to read through – well done! | ||
Revision as of 22:30, 22 September 2015
Josef: Thank you, I like the idea. I would suggest to focus on either "product modularization" or "process modularization" to give your article more focus. Of course, the relationship between the two is also very interesting, but that may get a bit too broad for your article to discuss all three aspects in one "go".
Adam.pekala (reviewer 2) article accessed 2015-09-22 20:00:
The article is very nicely started with good abstract and key words. It gives a really nice overview on what the article is going to be about and creates a desire to read through – well done!
- It is good that you keep the article illustration heavy – they are well-chosen and appropriate. However, the alignment of the illustrations is something to work on (double check underlines and positioning)
- Sections are made correctly and it seems that they really correspond to the article. However, lack or very small introduction to the explanations and sub-topics makes it hard to read and provides the reader with a feeling of an inconsistent text. It is something to look into.
- From a construction-guy perspective – I definitely agree with prefab as modularization. How about quickly looking into new concepts of modularized blocks of flats (with apartments as a whole) or small detached houses that one can assembly with modules to his or her needs? Might be interesting, if you find time and/or space (I know that these are small/quick examples).
- The flow of the article seems to be disturbed at some point. There is, to my mind, some inconsistency of placing the sections (e.g. Sustainability and LC in-between Benefits and Limitations). Try to work this out to better fit in the method description theme.
- Try to use more of the WIKI functions. Links and links to bibliography and source seem to be a necessity so it would be great to have that in your article as well.
- The structure of bibliography will probably change as you continuously work on the article. Remember to give some description about the sources you used or further reading.
Summing up, it seems to be a good base and you seem to have planned to develop it more. I am really looking forward for the automotive industry part – I am a car enthusiast and would love to learn something about modularization in this industry. You have already hit the 3000 words mark – be careful. Good luck!
