Talk:Outcome

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Not that clear |- |'''Language'''|| OK |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Not sure what the article will ac...")
 
(→‎Answer 7)
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
|'''Other'''|| The abstract is too short. Have a look in the Course Handbook where the suggested structure is mentioned.  
 
|'''Other'''|| The abstract is too short. Have a look in the Course Handbook where the suggested structure is mentioned.  
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Pedro Cunha''==
 +
===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 has a good contextualization and it is transparent. The purpose of the article is cleat and I can see a connection to the project management.
 +
 +
===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 argument is clear and the article contains a logical flow. It explains the three points of view of the different books, and the respectively concepts always stating the difference and no contradictions.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
Little errors in grammar
 +
 +
===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 and tables are clear, but they need better explanations. Re-size the diagram of PRINCE2 and go deeper on the interpretation. Make own tables to summarize the content of the article can help the reader to get a better understanding.
 +
 +
===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 and the theme is interesting, has strong academic relevance, and it is clear in the text why. As it is said in the abstract all the projects results in outcomes and they are all developed and managed in order to increase the value of the outcome.
 +
 +
===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 has a strong importance in helping real life projects being managed. The article exposes more information that the one that can be found online.
 +
 +
===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 conclusion must be finished, must conclude and summarize all the key points from all the article. At the moment is too concise . my suggestion is to include the discussion in the conclusion and clarify some key points.
 +
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Rajat Kumar''==
 +
===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 purpose is clear and has a good context in relation to the topic and Project management
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
Proper logical flow in reading the article with clear arguments.no contradictions in the article in explaining the points
 +
 +
===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===
 +
small grammatical errors in some places
 +
 +
===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 are used perfectly to explain the content.
 +
 +
===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 interesting and relevant for academic reference and "Why" is very much clear in article and stated perfectly
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
It contains siginficant content for academic reference.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
It will give better understanding if you can add conclusion.

Latest revision as of 13:04, 25 February 2019

Contents

[edit] Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity Not that clear
Language OK
Description of the tool/theory/concept Not sure what the article will actually contain
Purpose explanation Not that clear
Title of the Wiki Could be more descriptive.
Relevance to curriculum Yes since you focus on project management.
References Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
Other The abstract is too short. Have a look in the Course Handbook where the suggested structure is mentioned.

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Pedro Cunha

[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 has a good contextualization and it is transparent. The purpose of the article is cleat and I can see a connection to the project management.

[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 argument is clear and the article contains a logical flow. It explains the three points of view of the different books, and the respectively concepts always stating the difference and no contradictions.

[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

Little errors in grammar

[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

Figures and tables are clear, but they need better explanations. Re-size the diagram of PRINCE2 and go deeper on the interpretation. Make own tables to summarize the content of the article can help the reader to get a better understanding.

[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

The article and the theme is interesting, has strong academic relevance, and it is clear in the text why. As it is said in the abstract all the projects results in outcomes and they are all developed and managed in order to increase the value of the outcome.

[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

The article has a strong importance in helping real life projects being managed. The article exposes more information that the one that can be found online.

[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

The conclusion must be finished, must conclude and summarize all the key points from all the article. At the moment is too concise . my suggestion is to include the discussion in the conclusion and clarify some key points.


[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Rajat Kumar

[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 purpose is clear and has a good context in relation to the topic and Project management

[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

Proper logical flow in reading the article with clear arguments.no contradictions in the article in explaining the points

[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

small grammatical errors in some places

[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

Figures are used perfectly to explain the content.

[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

The article is interesting and relevant for academic reference and "Why" is very much clear in article and stated perfectly

[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

It contains siginficant content for academic reference.

[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

It will give better understanding if you can add conclusion.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Outcome&oldid=66605"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox