Talk:Vico Office as a project management tool
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check comments below
Language; Ok.
References; missing references related to the standards
Initially the abstract is not out of scope, if your article describes how procurement could be undertaken in a digital environment compared with traditional ways of procurement described in the standards.
However if you develop a VICO user guidelines, then the article will be out of scope.
The abstract lists, Model register-LBS Manager-Take-off Manager-Cost Planner-Schedule Planner-4D Simulation, that are different modules of the VICO workflows that will be out of scope.
Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ína Salome Sturludóttir'
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
IT would be nice if there was a headline with either summary og absract. It is not clear that the first part is an introduction. But anyways, the first part highligts the focus points, and gives a nice introduction on what the article will include
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
