Talk:Types of activities

From apppm
Revision as of 20:35, 25 February 2019 by Sm nadukuru (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity -
Language -
Description of the tool/theory/concept -
Purpose explanation -
Title of the Wiki -
Relevance to curriculum -
References Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
Other Anstract is missing so I cannot give you feedback. What is the purpose of the article?

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sandro Pina

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

I think that the subject is well tackled and explained. Even though it doesn't pass a personal view on the theme, but as the writer mentioned it is not finished yet, it is clear what is it about and well exposed.

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

The arcticle is clear and well structured. The subthemes are well organised. So far, it is very concrete and concise so I believe it is free of contradictions. I would suggest to put more personal input. To mention why is it important to talk about this, how does this relate to APPPM. I would put in Bold in the "Define the Project's Activities" the bullet points. (personal advice) In the Sequence activities part if it could be better distributed so it wouldn't be so much text together. But I understand it is difficult.

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

The language is concise and clear. Only minor spelling: in "Activity description" maybe it is quotes "" instead of accents ´` (?) and in the pre last point of this part when it is "finish-to finish" should be "finish-to-finish". As I said, minor spelling.

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

There are no figures nor tables.

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

Mentioned before it should be better linked with the curriculum of the course so the reader can actually see why is he reading it.

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

Thea arcticle is still under development. I believe that a summary with a personal approach would be interesting for the reader.

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

There is no bibliography or references.

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: sai mahesh nadukuru

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox