Talk:Resources in Project Management
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Helena Rejndrup
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?
Answer 1
The summary is sufficient.
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?
Answer 2
A lot of terms are mentioned and explained, it makes me forget the key focus. Also I don’t really see how they all connect. It would be nice to have a bit more flow, to make it a bit clearer how the terms are connected. Some of the sections begins a bit random: “It is not sufficient to only have some inputs. There also have to be some tools/equipment for making sure the project parts are being implemented.” You mention project parts, but what project parts?
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?
Answer 3
Smaller errors: “looked out how the…” (Plan resource management). The language is nice, but it could be more spot on. I don’t know if I would say things like “Project charter is probably one of the most confusing areas” as it seems like you think it is confusing, and I do not know if that is relevant to the reader
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
Did you remake the figures yourself? I got the impression that we have to do that. Quite a few of the illustration are blurry.
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?
Answer 5
The article seems very relevant to the topic, though i
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
There are so many elements in the article, it seems a bit shallow some of it. I think it would be nicer to focus on fewer parts of this, and then tell how and why this is important to manage the resources in project management.
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?
Answer 7
This part seems fine.
