Talk:SAFe
Thanosfotis (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Athanasios Fotis''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Yes. The summary is very well structured and written and it is very clear to the reviewer about the topic which will be further analyzed.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There is a good logical flow to the article. It is very good that you end with the limitations while you have already described the principles and the actual implementation. |
| + | You are using a lot of arguments in order to explain the topic and the structure you have chosen is very good and clear.'' | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 130: | Line 131: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The are not grammar and spelling errors. Generally the text is well writen'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 142: | Line 143: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I like very much the picture you have used because it is very clear and to the point. However, I would like to see more pictures because it doesn't seem consistent regarding the format of the article.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 154: | Line 155: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The topic is really interesting and in my opinion relevant too.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 166: | Line 167: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Regarding the clear methodology I think that it is more interesting for a practitioner. '' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 180: | Line 181: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | '' The citation is good, although I would add and some more references such as PMBOK and ISO. In general it is a great job! You can definitely improve it, but it is clear that this is not the final version.'' |
Latest revision as of 23:29, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Anne Dittmann
[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
Yes. The summary is well written and has a clear focus, it sums up really nicely what is intended to do in the article - very interesting topic
[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
There is a good logical flow - it is good how you start with the concept and goes into the implementation and finishes with the limitations. The argumentation and the explaination of the concept is clear and it is easy to read. It is really nice that you have split up the text in some bulletpoints and bold text as indication of important things/points.
[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
Overall good spelling and grammar. It is easy to understand.
[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
There is only one figure and it shows the implementation of SAFe very nice. It should perhaps be scaled a bit down in the final article, it is quite large. Since there is only one figure, I would suggest having one or two in the concept section (when the article is finalized) as well to support your text and point.
[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
The topic is very interesting and relevant. I see the article both as practical and academic of relevance because it is about a methodology - how it works and how it can be implemented
[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
I would say the article is most interesting for a practitioner, because it describes the methodology step by step without being to heavy in the theory and history. The article is a good starting point for a practitioner. Furthermore, the article is critical to the methodology and provides limitations of it.
[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
Good work with the citation and referencing throughout the article. The choice of references seems proper, but I would hesitate a bit when using a blog article. Remember to include the standards as well. No annotated bibliography has been made yet.
Good job! It is a very interesting topic and highly relevant - will be looking forward to read the finished article.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Athanasios Fotis
[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
Yes. The summary is very well structured and written and it is very clear to the reviewer about the topic which will be further analyzed.
[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
There is a good logical flow to the article. It is very good that you end with the limitations while you have already described the principles and the actual implementation. You are using a lot of arguments in order to explain the topic and the structure you have chosen is very good and clear.
[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
The are not grammar and spelling errors. Generally the text is well writen
[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
I like very much the picture you have used because it is very clear and to the point. However, I would like to see more pictures because it doesn't seem consistent regarding the format of the article.
[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
The topic is really interesting and in my opinion relevant too.
[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
Regarding the clear methodology I think that it is more interesting for a practitioner.
[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
The citation is good, although I would add and some more references such as PMBOK and ISO. In general it is a great job! You can definitely improve it, but it is clear that this is not the final version.
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Article purpose explanation | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant. Make sure you keep it within the focus |
| References | Missing references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
