Talk:Project Evaluation and Selection for the Formation of the Optimal Portfolio
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→review by Saeh0803: new section) |
m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
1. Very long summary, maybe you can make it a bit short and interesting for reader | 1. Very long summary, maybe you can make it a bit short and interesting for reader | ||
| + | 2. you didn't referenced the first figure in the text, you also not referenced the figure number two on the text, I know you explain the points from figure, but you need to write something like "..as it shown in figure X". | ||
| + | 3. | ||
| + | * Is the article interesting for a practitioner? --> I think it is a bit boring, it is maybe the way of writing.. (long explanations and long sentences ) but over all I think it is a good article and you have all main points, but if I search for this topic at google and want to read about it, then I will chose one, which is short and precis.. because you have write it in too many details.. | ||
| + | * Does the article clearly relate to a project, program or portfolio management topic? --> Yes | ||
| + | * Is it clear which one of the four “content categories” the article belongs to? --> yes | ||
| + | * Does the length of the article seem appropriate? Does it contain less relevant passages or excessive details? Does it miss critical details? (The suggested length is “on the order of 3500 words”. Articles can be longer or shorter if it makes sense to do so in order to deliver a quality argument.) --> I think this articles is more in 3500 words, I can't see it on WIKI, but it seems to be more than 3500.. | ||
| + | * Is there a logical flow throughout the article? Are the parts “tied together” through a red thread? --> I think yes | ||
| + | * Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors--> I think yes, I have difficult to understand,maybe because my english is not so good, but its really difficult to understand and readers may read one sentence more than one time to understand it.. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Is the article written in an engaging style, e.g. short, precise sentences instead of long winded, hard to follow mega -sentences? --> Puhaaa, I think it is difficult to understand and follow, you both have long sentences and many explanations | ||
| + | * Are all main points illustrated with an appropriate figure? | ||
| + | * Are the figures free of formal errors--> yes | ||
| + | * Are the figures referenced in the text? --> the first figure is not referenced in the text | ||
| + | * Does the author have the copyright or right to use the figures (e.g.through Creative) common Non-Commercial share Alike attribution?) --> maybe, can't see | ||
| − | * Is | + | * Is the article formatted properly, i.e. are the typical Wiki-features such sub-headings, proper bullet-point list and Wiki-style references used? are graphics, videos ect. integrated correctly? --> Yes |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Revision as of 22:01, 25 November 2014
review by Saeh0803
1. Very long summary, maybe you can make it a bit short and interesting for reader 2. you didn't referenced the first figure in the text, you also not referenced the figure number two on the text, I know you explain the points from figure, but you need to write something like "..as it shown in figure X".
3.
- Is the article interesting for a practitioner? --> I think it is a bit boring, it is maybe the way of writing.. (long explanations and long sentences ) but over all I think it is a good article and you have all main points, but if I search for this topic at google and want to read about it, then I will chose one, which is short and precis.. because you have write it in too many details..
- Does the article clearly relate to a project, program or portfolio management topic? --> Yes
- Is it clear which one of the four “content categories” the article belongs to? --> yes
- Does the length of the article seem appropriate? Does it contain less relevant passages or excessive details? Does it miss critical details? (The suggested length is “on the order of 3500 words”. Articles can be longer or shorter if it makes sense to do so in order to deliver a quality argument.) --> I think this articles is more in 3500 words, I can't see it on WIKI, but it seems to be more than 3500..
- Is there a logical flow throughout the article? Are the parts “tied together” through a red thread? --> I think yes
- Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors--> I think yes, I have difficult to understand,maybe because my english is not so good, but its really difficult to understand and readers may read one sentence more than one time to understand it..
- Is the article written in an engaging style, e.g. short, precise sentences instead of long winded, hard to follow mega -sentences? --> Puhaaa, I think it is difficult to understand and follow, you both have long sentences and many explanations
- Are all main points illustrated with an appropriate figure?
- Are the figures free of formal errors--> yes
- Are the figures referenced in the text? --> the first figure is not referenced in the text
- Does the author have the copyright or right to use the figures (e.g.through Creative) common Non-Commercial share Alike attribution?) --> maybe, can't see
- Is the article formatted properly, i.e. are the typical Wiki-features such sub-headings, proper bullet-point list and Wiki-style references used? are graphics, videos ect. integrated correctly? --> Yes
