Talk:Value to whom?

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Francisco Almirudis)
 
Line 22: Line 22:
  
 
===Answer 1===
 
===Answer 1===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
Abstract is good, I would divide it into different paragraphs just so it's easier to read.
  
 
===Question 2 · TEXT===
 
===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 38: Line 39:
  
 
===Answer 2===
 
===Answer 2===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
Good flow and easy to follow.
  
 
===Question 3 · TEXT===
 
===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 46: Line 48:
  
 
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?  
 
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?  
 +
 
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?  
 
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?  
  
Line 51: Line 54:
  
 
===Answer 3===
 
===Answer 3===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
I couldn't find any grammatical mistake.
  
 
===Question 4 · TEXT===
 
===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 63: Line 67:
  
 
===Answer 4===
 
===Answer 4===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
Figures are there and they are easy to understand, just make sure to give credit to the creators.
  
 
===Question 5 · TEXT===
 
===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 75: Line 80:
  
 
===Answer 5===
 
===Answer 5===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
Relevant indeed! I like it a lot
  
 
===Question 6 · TEXT===
 
===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 87: Line 93:
  
 
===Answer 6===
 
===Answer 6===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
To practicioners definitely.
  
 
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 
===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 101: Line 108:
  
 
===Answer 7===
 
===Answer 7===
''Answer here''
 
  
 +
Nice bibliography that is already compliant with the requirements, just make sure to add the sources of the pictures and yo uare good to go!
  
 
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Federica Menti''==
 
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Federica Menti''==

Latest revision as of 02:38, 26 February 2019

Contents

[edit] Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language The text is coherent.
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good. However, could you even scope the article even more? There's quite a few concepts introduced here.
Article purpose explanation Well elaborated.
Relevance to curriculum Relevant
References Good references.

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Francisco Almirudis

[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

Abstract is good, I would divide it into different paragraphs just so it's easier to read.

[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

Good flow and easy to follow.

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 3

I couldn't find any grammatical mistake.

[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

Figures are there and they are easy to understand, just make sure to give credit to the creators.

[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

Relevant indeed! I like it a lot

[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

To practicioners definitely.

[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

Nice bibliography that is already compliant with the requirements, just make sure to add the sources of the pictures and yo uare good to go!

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Federica Menti

[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 quite clear. Maybe to add more blank space (i.e.wrap lines to help readers)

[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

Yes the argument is clear and there is logical flow.


[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

Yes, there no grammatical errors and the language is precise. However I suggest the following improvements: Introduction part: avoid expression " we can see", repetition of "but" in line 1 and 2 Success of a project: create a dot list to help the reader and maybe create a subsection for "But, who is the main responsible for this value?" part

[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

Yes figures are clear

[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

Yes in the article is stated why it is relevant.

[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

Yes. Nothing to improve

[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 bibliography is well done

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox