Talk:Project Sponsorship

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language	The text is good. However, it can be more concise and coherent.
Description of the tool/theory/concept	Good.
Article purpose explanation	This needs to be elaborated.
Relevance to curriculum	Relevant
References	Remember to make correct references (websites). Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Mostly

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

I would outline the purpose of the article and I would introduce a brief definition of project sponsorship to better understand the following.

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Mostly

Does one part build upon the other? Mostly

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2

I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents.

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 3

I would suggest to make some sentences shorter, in order to make easier the understanding.

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

I would add some figures to support the ideas.

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? yes

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 5

I would develop the missing chapter and I would add the limitation of project sponsorship.

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

I would add some tools that are used in dealing with project sponsorship

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? yes

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? no

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 7

I would summarise the content of each reference.