Talk:Project Uniqueness
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Hagos Zeru Gide''== | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Hagos Zeru Gide''== | ||
Latest revision as of 10:49, 26 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Hannah Kürschner
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes it point it out in a good way.
What would you suggest to improve? Keep in mind the article should explain the method and should not advertise it.
[edit] Answer 1
Answer here
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes the argument is clear, but a bit repetitive in the beginning.
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes the structure is logical and good understandable.
Does one part build upon the other? Yes they built up ion one another.
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes it is
What would you suggest to improve? The Introduction paragraph is repetitive to the abstract.
[edit] Answer 2
Answer here
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? In the beginning are some minor grammar mistakes.
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes it is explained in a good way.
What would you suggest to improve? Read through it again.
[edit] Answer 3
Answer here
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear? Yes
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes they do
What would you suggest to improve? Nothing
[edit] Answer 4
Answer here
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes very much
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes
What would you suggest to improve? -
[edit] Answer 5
Answer here
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? yes
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? yes
What would you suggest to improve? -
[edit] Answer 6
Answer here
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? yes very good
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? yes
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? yes mostly (introduction)
What would you suggest to improve? introduction seems a bit like an advertisement
[edit] Answer 7
Answer here
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Hagos Zeru Gide
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
