Talk:Benefits of systems engineering - Revision history

S123790 at 14:23, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T14:23:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 25 February 2019
Line 115:		Line 115:

	No annotated bibliography has been made.		No annotated bibliography has been made.




			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Julie Andersen''==
			===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===
			''The abstract is very clear and gives a good overview of the key focus and insights of the article. There is a few spelling/grammar mistakes. It is a bit short, but it provides a good information of the article.''

			===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 flow is really good. The argument is not clear yet, but what I would suggest is exactly what is written to come in the limitations. It is important to include the limitations and benefits ''

			===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===
			''There are some spelling mistakes, but overall the language is good. ''

			===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===
			''There are no figures''

			===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===
			''So far it is not of any real relevance, but I am quite sure it will be when the sections with limitations is done.''

			===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===
			''Same as above''

			===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===
			''There is no annotated bibliography''

Jonina Thora at 22:07, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T22:07:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:07, 24 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Add some of the listed references in your abstract, if it makes sense to do so.		\|'''References'''\|\| Add some of the listed references in your abstract, if it makes sense to do so.
	\|}		\|}
	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Jonina Thora Einarsdottir		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Jonina Thora Einarsdottir==
	'''Question 1 · TEXT
	Quality of the summary:'''		'''Question 1 · TEXT'''

			'''Quality of the summary:'''

	Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?		Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
Line 20:		Line 22:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	'''Answer 1'''		'''Answer 1:'''

	I think it sums up pretty much what is to be discussed in the article. There are some grammar errors but otherwise it is pretty clear.		I think it sums up pretty much what is to be discussed in the article. There are some grammar errors but otherwise it is pretty clear.

	'''Question 2 · TEXT		'''Question 2 · TEXT'''
	Structure and logic of the article:'''
			'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

	Is the argument clear?		Is the argument clear?
Line 36:		Line 40:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	'''Answer 2'''		'''Answer 2:'''

	It seems like the article is not yet finished so I guess there are still some things missing. However, the structure that is already there is logical and the application chapter summarizes the process very clearly. I suggest putting more details into the article though as it is still a bit like a draft and therefore hard to make a full judgement on the article.		It seems like the article is not yet finished so I guess there are still some things missing. However, the structure that is already there is logical and the application chapter summarizes the process very clearly. I suggest putting more details into the article though as it is still a bit like a draft and therefore hard to make a full judgement on the article.

	'''Question 3 · TEXT		'''Question 3 · TEXT'''
	Grammar and style:'''
			'''Grammar and style:'''

	Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?		Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Line 48:		Line 54:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	'''Answer 3'''		'''Answer 3:'''

	Language is good, just a few grammatical errors here and there where a letter is missing for example. So I just suggest reading the text over to fix it.		Language is good, just a few grammatical errors here and there where a letter is missing for example. So I just suggest reading the text over to fix it.

	'''Question 4 · TEXT		'''Question 4 · TEXT'''
	Figures and tables:'''
			'''Figures and tables:'''

	Are figures and tables clear?		Are figures and tables clear?
Line 60:		Line 68:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	'''Answer 4'''		'''Answer 4:'''

	No figures or tables in the article so far so not possible to make judgement.		No figures or tables in the article so far so not possible to make judgement.

	'''Question 5 · TEXT		'''Question 5 · TEXT'''
	Interest and relevance:'''
			'''Interest and relevance:'''

	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?		Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Line 72:		Line 82:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	'''Answer 5'''		'''Answer 5:'''

	As said before, the article still maybe just has the general information but lacks details but the way it is structured is good and I consider it clear how it is relevant.		As said before, the article still maybe just has the general information but lacks details but the way it is structured is good and I consider it clear how it is relevant.

	'''Question 6 · TEXT		'''Question 6 · TEXT'''
	Depth of treatment:'''
			'''Depth of treatment:'''

	Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?		Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
Line 84:		Line 96:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	'''Answer 6'''		'''Answer 6:'''

	I think it is interesting for a practitioner to read as it looks clear and simple to read and addresses the matter in a clear way.		I think it is interesting for a practitioner to read as it looks clear and simple to read and addresses the matter in a clear way.
	'''
	Question 7 · TEXT		'''Question 7 · TEXT'''
	Annotated bibliography:'''
			'''Annotated bibliography:'''

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Line 98:		Line 112:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	'''Answer 7'''		'''Answer 7:'''

	No annotated bibliography has been made.		No annotated bibliography has been made.

Jonina Thora at 22:02, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T22:02:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:02, 24 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Add some of the listed references in your abstract, if it makes sense to do so.		\|'''References'''\|\| Add some of the listed references in your abstract, if it makes sense to do so.
	\|}		\|}
	Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Jonina Thora Einarsdottir		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Jonina Thora Einarsdottir
	Question 1 · TEXT		'''Question 1 · TEXT
	Quality of the summary:		Quality of the summary:'''

	Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?		Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
Line 20:		Line 20:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 1		'''Answer 1'''
	I think it sums up pretty much what is to be discussed in the article. There are some grammar errors but otherwise it is pretty clear.		I think it sums up pretty much what is to be discussed in the article. There are some grammar errors but otherwise it is pretty clear.

	Question 2 · TEXT		'''Question 2 · TEXT
	Structure and logic of the article:		Structure and logic of the article:'''

	Is the argument clear?		Is the argument clear?
Line 36:		Line 36:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 2		'''Answer 2'''
	It seems like the article is not yet finished so I guess there are still some things missing. However, the structure that is already there is logical and the application chapter summarizes the process very clearly. I suggest putting more details into the article though as it is still a bit like a draft and therefore hard to make a full judgement on the article.		It seems like the article is not yet finished so I guess there are still some things missing. However, the structure that is already there is logical and the application chapter summarizes the process very clearly. I suggest putting more details into the article though as it is still a bit like a draft and therefore hard to make a full judgement on the article.

	Question 3 · TEXT		'''Question 3 · TEXT
	Grammar and style:		Grammar and style:'''

	Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?		Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Line 48:		Line 48:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 3		'''Answer 3'''
	Language is good, just a few grammatical errors here and there where a letter is missing for example. So I just suggest reading the text over to fix it.		Language is good, just a few grammatical errors here and there where a letter is missing for example. So I just suggest reading the text over to fix it.

	Question 4 · TEXT		'''Question 4 · TEXT
	Figures and tables:		Figures and tables:'''

	Are figures and tables clear?		Are figures and tables clear?
Line 60:		Line 60:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 4		'''Answer 4'''
	No figures or tables in the article so far so not possible to make judgement.		No figures or tables in the article so far so not possible to make judgement.

	Question 5 · TEXT		'''Question 5 · TEXT
	Interest and relevance:		Interest and relevance:'''

	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?		Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Line 72:		Line 72:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 5		'''Answer 5'''
	As said before, the article still maybe just has the general information but lacks details but the way it is structured is good and I consider it clear how it is relevant.		As said before, the article still maybe just has the general information but lacks details but the way it is structured is good and I consider it clear how it is relevant.

	Question 6 · TEXT		'''Question 6 · TEXT
	Depth of treatment:		Depth of treatment:'''

	Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?		Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
Line 84:		Line 84:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 6		'''Answer 6'''
	I think it is interesting for a practitioner to read as it looks clear and simple to read and addresses the matter in a clear way.		I think it is interesting for a practitioner to read as it looks clear and simple to read and addresses the matter in a clear way.
			'''
	Question 7 · TEXT		Question 7 · TEXT
	Annotated bibliography:		Annotated bibliography:'''

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Line 98:		Line 98:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 7		'''Answer 7'''
	No annotated bibliography has been made.		No annotated bibliography has been made.

Jonina Thora: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-24T22:00:49Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:00, 24 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Add some of the listed references in your abstract, if it makes sense to do so.		\|'''References'''\|\| Add some of the listed references in your abstract, if it makes sense to do so.
	\|}		\|}
			Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Jonina Thora Einarsdottir
			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
			I think it sums up pretty much what is to be discussed in the article. There are some grammar errors but otherwise it is pretty clear.

			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
			It seems like the article is not yet finished so I guess there are still some things missing. However, the structure that is already there is logical and the application chapter summarizes the process very clearly. I suggest putting more details into the article though as it is still a bit like a draft and therefore hard to make a full judgement on the article.

			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
			Language is good, just a few grammatical errors here and there where a letter is missing for example. So I just suggest reading the text over to fix it.

			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
			No figures or tables in the article so far so not possible to make judgement.

			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
			As said before, the article still maybe just has the general information but lacks details but the way it is structured is good and I consider it clear how it is relevant.

			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 think it is interesting for a practitioner to read as it looks clear and simple to read and addresses the matter in a clear way.

			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
			No annotated bibliography has been made.

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text can be coherent. It seems that the abstract isn't finalized yet. This is fine, but make sure to not min..."

2019-02-19T22:34:33Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text can be coherent. It seems that the abstract isn't finalized yet. This is fine, but make sure to not min..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text can be coherent. It seems that the abstract isn't finalized yet. This is fine, but make sure to not minimize the use of bullets etc. There's also some grammatical errors, so please read it over again.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good.
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Good. However consider further scoping your article. Try to cover less areas, but in more depth? Disclaimer: A complete judgement cannot be made until the abstract is finalized.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant. However, always ensure this is kept within the realms of project/program/portfolio management.
|-
|'''References'''|| Add some of the listed references in your abstract, if it makes sense to do so.
|}