Talk:Project governance framework
(→Answer 1) |
(→Answer 3) |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | I really like your style of writing. You use appropriate language. There are some word repetitions in the sentences. | |
===Question 4=== | ===Question 4=== | ||
Revision as of 12:10, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Great and easy to follow
Purpose explanation Well addressed and particularly like the comparison of the different perspectives of a framework. Consider briefly explaining the structure of the article in the abstract
References Good
Relevance of article Relevant and good structure so far. Don't forget to include a section on "limitations" of the framework
Feedback 1| Reviewer name: Julia Hösel
Question 1
Quality of the summary:
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 1
The abstract summarizes the article well. It is good to get an overview of the article and about the content. I would only add one little thing. You are talking about a guide of APM and also a paper. I would also put in the title of these sources to give some background information.
Question 2
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?
Answer 2
Question 3
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?
Answer 3
I really like your style of writing. You use appropriate language. There are some word repetitions in the sentences.
Question 4
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
Question 5
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?
Answer 5
Question 6
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
Question 7
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?
