Talk:Why, How, What (The Golden Circle Model)
(→Abstract Feedback) |
|||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | + | Overall, yes. The abstract is clear, concise and summarises the focus of the article. I like the three bullet points. However, you could shortly add the relationship between the Golden Circle Model and the human brain in here as well, because that is really exciting. | |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | The argument is clear, and there is a logical flow and good setup to the article (assuming that the application and limitation will also be considered). One part does build upon another, especially the comparison of the Golden Circle Model and the human brain. The article (as it is now) is consistent in its argument and does not have contradictions. | |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | A small typo in the section Big Idea: "In his model, SInek explains something he...", you mean Sinek. | |
| + | |||
| + | Apart from that I found no grammatical and spelling errors. There were places where I would place an extra comma, but that does not necessarily make the text incorrect. The language is clear, concise and comprehensible. I have no further improvements. | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 149: | Line 151: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | The two figures are good to have in order to understand the points that you make, but figures should be self-explanatory. Explain in the figure text what the figure represents. | |
| + | |||
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 161: | Line 164: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | The topic that the article discusses is not a topic that all Project managers (assuming the topic is written in the project level, and not program or portefolio level) MUST know, and even though many project managers do not necessarily use the modelthey complete the project successfully. However, it is a very exciting topic, and a knowledge in this matter will undeniably be interesting and relevant for a project manager, because, as stated in the article, having a strong WHY helps establishing a strong vision, which can help with the motivation of the project team. | |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 17:56, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; missing references related to the standards
The abstract describes the use of the golden circle in organizations, try to develop the article thinking in the project organization and find relevant literature.
Annotated bibliography is a list of articles, books or documents followed by a briefly descriptive and evaluative paragraph, what you have under your annotated bibliography section are references.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Baptiste Hubert
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
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Seyed (Habib) Bahrami
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
Overall, yes. The abstract is clear, concise and summarises the focus of the article. I like the three bullet points. However, you could shortly add the relationship between the Golden Circle Model and the human brain in here as well, because that is really exciting.
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 argument is clear, and there is a logical flow and good setup to the article (assuming that the application and limitation will also be considered). One part does build upon another, especially the comparison of the Golden Circle Model and the human brain. The article (as it is now) is consistent in its argument and does not have contradictions.
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
A small typo in the section Big Idea: "In his model, SInek explains something he...", you mean Sinek.
Apart from that I found no grammatical and spelling errors. There were places where I would place an extra comma, but that does not necessarily make the text incorrect. The language is clear, concise and comprehensible. I have no further improvements.
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
The two figures are good to have in order to understand the points that you make, but figures should be self-explanatory. Explain in the figure text what the figure represents.
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
The topic that the article discusses is not a topic that all Project managers (assuming the topic is written in the project level, and not program or portefolio level) MUST know, and even though many project managers do not necessarily use the modelthey complete the project successfully. However, it is a very exciting topic, and a knowledge in this matter will undeniably be interesting and relevant for a project manager, because, as stated in the article, having a strong WHY helps establishing a strong vision, which can help with the motivation of the project team.
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
