Talk:The Project Charter
(Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Johan Hilsøe== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the ...") |
|||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| − | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Jokin Brito''== | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 102: | Line 98: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The summary gives a good idea about the topic, it talks about how this can help a project to be successful and helps the reader to stay interested.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 118: | Line 114: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The structure makes the article a little hard to read, I would give more examples of how the project charter can be made instead of writing all the tools as bullet points. Even though it helps a project manager to understand the importance of making a project charter.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 130: | Line 126: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The grammar is good, just some minor mistakes in the abstract'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 142: | Line 138: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The figures are good but I would try to create new figures instead of censoring the existing ones, also I would add figure numbers.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 154: | Line 150: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is interesting and very relevant to project management, it explains well why this tool is important in any project'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 166: | Line 162: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I would add some empirical knowledge or real life examples. The pros and cones are good.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 180: | Line 176: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''This part is vey well done.'' |
Latest revision as of 23:06, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Johan Hilsøe
[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
The summary provides a good overview of what to expect of the article. Especially the last section is a nice overview of the article. Maybe consider describing what a project charter is in a single sentence or two, before explaining the limitations, pros and cons.
[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
It makes sense to explain why one would make a project charter and then explain exactly what it contains. The example links it all together, but the picture could be larger. Also, I think that it shouldn't contain confidential information blanked out - rather make a new one with made up contents.
[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
Most of the article is in perfect english. The abstract needs a fine-tuning though :).
[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
The text links to the pictures well. No comments.
[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
Very relevant, especially linked to the process of a project.
[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
The article provides rather good information on the project charter, but the subject can easily be Googled. If possible, dig deeper in to the pros and cons and how to use it. Use the example :).
[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
Perfect, provides why the references are used. Maybe one more reference would be good.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Jokin Brito
[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
The summary gives a good idea about the topic, it talks about how this can help a project to be successful and helps the reader to stay interested.
[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
The structure makes the article a little hard to read, I would give more examples of how the project charter can be made instead of writing all the tools as bullet points. Even though it helps a project manager to understand the importance of making a project charter.
[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 grammar is good, just some minor mistakes in the abstract
[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
The figures are good but I would try to create new figures instead of censoring the existing ones, also I would add figure numbers.
[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 article is interesting and very relevant to project management, it explains well why this tool is important in any project
[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 add some empirical knowledge or real life examples. The pros and cones are good.
[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
This part is vey well done.
