Talk:Work Breakdown Structure
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don't forget to ...") |
(→Abstract Feedback) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Abstract Feedback== | ==Abstract Feedback== | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | '''Text clarity''' Good | |
| − | + | '''Language''' Good | |
| − | + | '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good | |
| − | Try to find new trends in the use of WBS. | + | '''Purpose explanation''' Well addressed (e.g. clear that the Project Manager is the reader), but who you mention both projects and programs. It is important to make it clear which one you're referring to in the article as the subject area could differ depending on which one you look at? Or are you comparing WBS in both projects and programs? |
| + | |||
| + | '''References''' Good | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Relevance of article''' In general the abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe new developments on the topic and avoid to be too generic. Try to find new trends in the use of WBS. | ||
Revision as of 17:15, 13 February 2018
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Good
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good
Purpose explanation Well addressed (e.g. clear that the Project Manager is the reader), but who you mention both projects and programs. It is important to make it clear which one you're referring to in the article as the subject area could differ depending on which one you look at? Or are you comparing WBS in both projects and programs?
References Good
Relevance of article In general the abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe new developments on the topic and avoid to be too generic. Try to find new trends in the use of WBS.
