Talk:Need-Based Theories of Motivation
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Walther Emil Eriksen) |
||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Walther Emil Eriksen''== | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Walther Emil Eriksen''== | ||
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 98: | Line 95: | ||
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The summary is not clear. The key points of the article are missing. Try to incorporate more arguments to why need theories are important for a project manager. Core references would also be good to incorporate to make the key points and arguments more reliable'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 110: | Line 104: | ||
Is the argument clear? | Is the argument clear? | ||
| − | |||
Is there a logical flow to the article? | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| − | |||
Does one part build upon the other? | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| − | |||
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| − | |||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is missing arguments throughout. It is providing methods without elaborating on when to use them and the relation to a project manager. Article is clearly not finished and the application part specifically needs more content.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 133: | Line 120: | ||
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| − | |||
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| − | |||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Minor grammatical errors, but overall a precise language in the article'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 148: | Line 132: | ||
Are figures and tables clear? | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| − | |||
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| − | |||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Figures should be re-made by the author and their content needs to be elaborated to understand their importance toward the arguments.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 163: | Line 144: | ||
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| − | |||
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | ||
| − | |||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The relevance needs to be more precisely elaborated. What does the different needs theories mean for a manager?'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 178: | Line 156: | ||
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| − | |||
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
| − | |||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Not yet, more content is needed and more precise arguments. Examples from real life cases could be used to make the relevance more clear.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 198: | Line 168: | ||
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| − | |||
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | ||
| − | |||
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | ||
| − | |||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Article is missing references and annotated bibliography.'' |
Revision as of 19:15, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli
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?
Answer 1
The abstract is a bit unclear and too wild. I would suggest to look into how is it connected to project/program/portfolio management, how can it be incorporated to project management processes and how can it be useful for a project manager. I would suggest to elaborate on the structure of the article a bit more so it would be easier to understand the article flow.
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?
Answer 2
The article parts do not really build upon each other. I would suggest to follow the recommended structure for the article and move the draft chapter under big idea. It nice to start with the background/history and maybe add some more explanation about the usage and the relevance of the theories under this chapter. The list of the theories could be moved under application, with adding how is it used and why is it relevant. It would be nice to additionally compare the theories to each other.
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?
Answer 3
Grammar is okay apart from a few spelling mistakes.
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?
Answer 4
The figures are not really illustrative, it would make more sense to either make your own tables or write down the content of the tables in the text. I would suggest to add figure text and references to every figure/table.
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?
Answer 5
The article is need to elaborate further on why and how is the theories relevant. I would suggest to find a case study and illustrate the theories with the help of it.
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?
Answer 6
The article is very general, right now is more like a description of the theories. An improvement could be to make it more precise, connect it more to project management and explain step by step how they could be used by project managers for example.
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?
Answer 7
The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Walther Emil Eriksen
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?
Answer 1
The summary is not clear. The key points of the article are missing. Try to incorporate more arguments to why need theories are important for a project manager. Core references would also be good to incorporate to make the key points and arguments more reliable
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?
Answer 2
The article is missing arguments throughout. It is providing methods without elaborating on when to use them and the relation to a project manager. Article is clearly not finished and the application part specifically needs more content.
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?
Answer 3
Minor grammatical errors, but overall a precise language in the article
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?
Answer 4
Figures should be re-made by the author and their content needs to be elaborated to understand their importance toward the arguments.
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?
Answer 5
The relevance needs to be more precisely elaborated. What does the different needs theories mean for a manager?
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?
Answer 6
Not yet, more content is needed and more precise arguments. Examples from real life cases could be used to make the relevance more clear.
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?
Answer 7
Article is missing references and annotated bibliography.
