Talk:User-Centered Design
(Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to reference th...") |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Try to see if you can connect with the PM ISO 21500. | Try to see if you can connect with the PM ISO 21500. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Lorenz Sieferle=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question 1 | ||
| + | Quality of the summary: | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | [edit]Answer 1 | ||
| + | [edit]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? | ||
| + | [edit]Answer 2 | ||
| + | [edit]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? | ||
| + | [edit]Answer 3 | ||
| + | [edit]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? | ||
| + | [edit]Answer 4 | ||
| + | [edit]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? | ||
| + | [edit]Answer 5 | ||
| + | [edit]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? | ||
| + | [edit]Answer 6 | ||
| + | [edit]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? | ||
| + | [edit]Answer 7 | ||
Revision as of 00:12, 19 February 2018
Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; missing references
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to reference the article and try connect with the content of course.
Try to see if you can connect with the PM ISO 21500.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Lorenz Sieferle
Question 1 Quality of the summary:
What would you suggest to improve? [edit]Answer 1 [edit]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? [edit]Answer 2 [edit]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? [edit]Answer 3 [edit]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? [edit]Answer 4 [edit]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? [edit]Answer 5 [edit]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? [edit]Answer 6 [edit]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? [edit]Answer 7
