Talk:Prince2
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Nikolaj Haagen Patzig Petersen''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Good summery/Abstract, gives a good overview of what is going to presented '' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I guess a lot of material is still missing so a bit hard to determine the consistancy and the flow. |
| + | But the headlines present is good and i think the article is structure well in the sence of the headlines now'' | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 56: | Line 57: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Very good so far'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 68: | Line 69: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Really nice table, and i like the way you use bullet points as well, malet it nice and easy to read'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 80: | Line 81: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Very relevant in relation to PM, i really like the critical evaluation part, that narrow in and describe suitable conditions'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 92: | Line 93: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Not enough material to determiner yet'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 106: | Line 107: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Not yet'' |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Latest revision as of 16:33, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good but the abstract is a bit short so you have space to explain further |
| Purpose explanation | Good |
| Title of the Wiki | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| 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 | Abstract is a bit short |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Haagen Patzig Petersen
[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
Good summery/Abstract, gives a good overview of what is going to presented
[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
I guess a lot of material is still missing so a bit hard to determine the consistancy and the flow. But the headlines present is good and i think the article is structure well in the sence of the headlines now
[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
Very good so far
[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
Really nice table, and i like the way you use bullet points as well, malet it nice and easy to read
[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
Very relevant in relation to PM, i really like the critical evaluation part, that narrow in and describe suitable conditions
[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
Not enough material to determiner yet
[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
Not yet
