Talk:PRINCE2 - For successful Project Management

Revision as of 23:22, 22 September 2015

[[(S142899_I am not aware of whether I am reviewer ½ or 3) In general this is a good article with minor improvements needed. A) 1. Introduction: Clear description of the prince2 method. The word “right” is purposely mentioned 3 times in the same sentence. Is this acceptable? Grammatically I could not identify any obvious error at the introduction. 2.Probably, the use of commas (,) will help the reader to read the text easier. In the PRINCIPLES paragraph, in the last sentence capitals after commas could be changed into small letters. 3.In the CONTINUED BUSINESS JUSTIFICATION paragraph the words: Business Case, start with capital letters. I would recommend to switch in small letters. In the same paragraph, check if reference is missing. 4.In the paragraph LEARN FROMEXPERIENCE, overlapping of the “ lessons learned” meaning exists.(probably reform it in a more concrete way) 5.References for tables are missing 6.In paragraph “Manage by exception” : Refer the references for the four managing levels 7.Focus on Products paragraph according to prince 2 ( reference missing). 8.In the themes paragraph, I would firstly introduce the themes and then I would explain the strength of Prince2. 9.In the PROCESSES Paragraph, when referring to processes use “…” instead of capital letter in each word. 10.Also reference for the figure 2 and table 3 are missing. 11.At the last paragraph, the expression “That is,…” Could be changed in order to ensure a more scientific way of expression.

B. The paragraph PROJECTS IN A PROGRAMME ENVIRONMENT might be evaluated again if it should be fitted in this order on not. Perhaps, it seems too generic and does not follow the flow of the other paragraphs.

c. The article seems convincing enough. Changes are mentioned above in order to create a more solid outcome. Extra information in the THEMES paragraphs could probably be added. (not necessary though)]]

LasseHoier87 reviewer 1

First impression is good, especially the use of illustrations is good. The layout is nice and the use of illustrations makes it more interesting reading the article.

Formal aspects: (Wiki article Peer Review template is used)

• The article is as clearly stated in the article following a “method”
• No gramma faults or spelling. Small typing errors or plural mistakes. E.g. line 1 “six performance aspects”
• Written in a fine engaging style. In the start, the sentence is too long and may be a bit too much direct style. Use more formal style.
• I think the figures are fine and illustrative, making the sense obvious.
• Good and understandable figures, maybe the figure 1 is a bit small. The text is almost impossible to see.
• No formal errors in the figures or tables as far as I can see
• Yes the figures and tables is referred to in the text
• Regarding copyright issue – It is not clear to me if you have cleared this with the author of the figures.
• I think the overall wiki formation of the article is fine. Good use of headlines, sub-headlines and so on. Excellent !

Content aspects:

• For practitioners it is a relevant article, because the topic is very relevant to practitioners.
• I think is linking good to APPPM course as it is dealing with project management.
• The length of the article is fine. I don’t think it should be longer, maybe too manu sub-titles. I would properly make it more coherent and try to leave out some of the sub-titles. E.g. bullet points and a short description to each bullet point.
• I think the overall red thread is fine. First introduction of the method, principles, themes, processes and projects in a program environment.
• The starting summary is good and works fine.
• The reference is good sufficient.
• The material used is both books and websites. The quality is sufficient.
• Yes, good section of annotated bibliography. Describing very good the books used.
• As far as I noticed, there were no link to other APPPM wiki article.
• Own opinion is clearly stated in “ limitations” where the reflections is dealt with. Nice to reflect and point out the limitations.
• There is no reason to think there is any type of plagiarism.