Talk:Adaptive Project Management - Revision history

Søren Bojesen: /* Question 1 · TEXT */

2019-02-25T22:49:27Z

Question 1 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 25 February 2019
Line 93:		Line 93:


			REVIEWER: SØREN BOJESEN
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

Søren Bojesen: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Srdjan Gluhovic */

2019-02-25T22:48:54Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Srdjan Gluhovic

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:48, 25 February 2019
Line 87:		Line 87:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	The article does not have an Annotated bibliography section that cites previous work because the article is not entirely completed. The suggestions will be to create an Annotated bibliography and create references to the different section parts and briefly summarize them at the end of the article.		The article does not have an Annotated bibliography section that cites previous work because the article is not entirely completed. The suggestions will be to create an Annotated bibliography and create references to the different section parts and briefly summarize them at the end of the article.



			----


			===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===

			Generally, the abstract is neat and nice. It would be great with one or two quotes or citations from a standard or relevant litterature to underline the statements.


			===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===

			You already briefly mention the opportunities from this managerial approach, but what are the limitations or risks of running a project using these techniques?


			===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===

			I think the text is easy to read and understand, not many unneccessary fillers or gramatical errors.


			===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===

			I would suggest to use some more pictures ;-)


			===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===

			It's describing its purpose and all, but its not really exhilarating - convincing the reader of this method, as being the shit.


			===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===

			I believe it will be, when its finished.

			===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===

			Not yet.

Srdjangluhovic: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Srdjan Gluhovic */

2019-02-25T15:23:53Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Srdjan Gluhovic

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:23, 25 February 2019
Line 49:		Line 49:
	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	There is no figures or tables represented in this article, but I can see that the figure text is already added in the article which indicates that the figures is not inserted yet.		There is no figures or tables represented in this article, but I can see that the figure text is already added in the article which indicates that the figures is not inserted yet.


	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 74:		Line 73:
	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	The article is interesting as it describes the purpose and approach of Adaptive Project Management. It represents the five phases of the project life cycle which is an essential aspect. A suggestion would be to include the limitation section and explained what is complicated about this method. Since the article is not finished, it is difficult to give further suggestion other than to complete the rest and make sure everything fits together.		The article is interesting as it describes the purpose and approach of Adaptive Project Management. It represents the five phases of the project life cycle which is an essential aspect. A suggestion would be to include the limitation section and explained what is complicated about this method. Since the article is not finished, it is difficult to give further suggestion other than to complete the rest and make sure everything fits together.


	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===

Srdjangluhovic: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Srdjan Gluhovic */

2019-02-25T15:23:20Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Srdjan Gluhovic

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:23, 25 February 2019
Line 8:		Line 8:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The abstract provides the reader with a good and consistent overview of what the article is about. The method is well described and relates to the general topic. A suggestion will be to include the necessary references in the abstract.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 24:		Line 24:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The article has a logical flow with a clear definition of each of the section. The different sections make it easy for the reader to separate the content in each section. One part builds upon the other one in the phases of approach. Since the article is not entirely ready no further comments, keep up the good work.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 36:		Line 36:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	~~''Answer here''~~		I did notice some grammatical errors in the text, and I would suggest running the article through a spelling check program like Grammarly. Otherwise, the sections do not have unnecessary fill words.

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 48:		Line 48:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~		There is no figures or tables represented in this article, but I can see that the figure text is already added in the article which indicates that the figures is not inserted yet.


	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 60:		Line 61:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The article has academic relevance of adaptive project management and how to improve decisions and practices during the project life cycle which also refers to the practical importance. It is also clear how adaptive project management is relevant.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 72:		Line 73:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The article is interesting as it describes the purpose and approach of Adaptive Project Management. It represents the five phases of the project life cycle which is an essential aspect. A suggestion would be to include the limitation section and explained what is complicated about this method. Since the article is not finished, it is difficult to give further suggestion other than to complete the rest and make sure everything fits together.


	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 86:		Line 88:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The article does not have an Annotated bibliography section that cites previous work because the article is not entirely completed. The suggestions will be to create an Annotated bibliography and create references to the different section parts and briefly summarize them at the end of the article.

Srdjangluhovic: Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Srdjan Gluhovic''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution o..."

2019-02-24T17:08:24Z

Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Srdjan Gluhovic''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution o..."

New page

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Srdjan Gluhovic''==
===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''