Talk:Cash flow and milestone payments - Revision history

PhantomWorks at 10:02, 26 February 2019

2019-02-26T10:02:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, 26 February 2019
Line 18:		Line 18:
	\|'''Other'''\|\| Change the order between the abstract and the introduction so the abstract is first.		\|'''Other'''\|\| Change the order between the abstract and the introduction so the abstract is first.
	\|}		\|}

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Rasmus Vedel''==
			===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===
			Good introduction into the key areas and manages to capture interest.

			===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 seems to be consistent and free of contradictions but it is, in all honesty, difficult to answer wholeheartedly, as the article is a difficult read with severe grammatical and linguistic shortcomings leading to a loss of understanding. See next section for clarification.

			===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===
			The writing has repeated grammatical errors, most of which relate to improper use of single and plural verbs, i.e. "are" instead of "is"

			The choice of words sound very "Danglish" at times, i.e. "Cash flow is a tool, that gives an indication about the money moving in and out of the company", instead of (purely suggestive) "The Cash Flow tools centers itself around the way money moves in and out of the company".

			"Etc" is used way too often - it's to the point where its usage pulls attention from the content.

			There appears to be a severe overuse of commas - the text doesn't read easy.

			The use of slash and paranthesis may be lessened as much as possible - it makes the text appear to be notes rather than a finished work.

			At times words are used that hold completely different meetings, i.e. "advantage" is used where "advance" must be the sought after word.

			In general, the lack of quality in writing makes the article a difficult read. Meaning is lost as the reader must try to make out odd sentences. A good starting point would likely be to run the text through a word processor such as MO Word, as let the spell checking and grammatical control units do their thing.


			===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===
			Figures are clear, albeit they could benefit from more text with more in-depth explanations.

			===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 intentions are made clear, but a more practical approach on how to utilize the tools or perhaps examples of how they hav been used would be benficial.

			===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===
			Not really

			===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 real discussion on the websites used nor their validity.

			It is unclear on some instances whether the references work is a book or other. No publisher listed, etc.

			PMI referenced three times.

RikkeK: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T20:46:55Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 25 February 2019
Line 18:		Line 18:
	\|'''Other'''\|\| Change the order between the abstract and the introduction so the abstract is first.		\|'''Other'''\|\| Change the order between the abstract and the introduction so the abstract is first.
	\|}		\|}


			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Rikke Louise Kjær Knudsen''==
			===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===
			Good introduction into the key areas and manages to capture interest.
			The spelling could be improved, cut out unnecessary words and make sure not to repeate the same things over and over again.

			===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 article is not coherent, the sections do not flow naturally.
			The section “Introduction” is unnecessary as you already have “Contents”
			“Definition of Cash flow and milestone payment”: A long section just for a definition. Normally definitions are short and specific. Try to incorporate and shorten it in the next section.
			You mention a lot of the same things sevel times though the article.
			“Cash flow and milestone payment in general”: A bit early to list pros/cons.
			Include pros/cons in the reflection-section
			Try to shorten to name of the sections


			===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===
			Poor language use. The article is written with repeated grammatical errors.

			Be more direct and exact in your language, it contains a lot of unnecessary fill words, but very few academic words and theorem.

			===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 quality of the figures are poor, but they give a good understanding. More explanation could be usefull.

			===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 of the article is relevant, but the implementation and examples of this are lacking. Why the article ends up being irrelevant.


			===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===
			No, the article was strenuous reading as you both should understand the tool and the meaning from a poorly written text.

			===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===
			The article does not contain a discussion of the applications or pros/cons of the tool.
			The article does not link the references correct in the sections, why most of the article seems self-invented.
			Use more references and link them in the article after every section/part.

Ebkh: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-19T10:43:53Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:43, 19 February 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:

	{\|		{\|
	\|'''Text clarity'''\|\|		\|'''Text clarity'''\|\| Good
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Language'''\|\|		\|'''Language'''\|\| Good but with a few misspellings
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\|		\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| Could be more clear. Could decide to choose either project, program or portfolio management
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Purpose explanation'''\|\|		\|'''Purpose explanation'''\|\| Good
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Title of the Wiki'''\|\|		\|'''Title of the Wiki'''\|\| Good but if you decide to choose one either project, program or portfolio then you could write e.g. Cash Flow and Milestone Payments in Project Management
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''References'''\|\|		\|'''Relevance to curriculum'''\|\| Relevant
			\|-
			\|'''References'''\|\| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
			\|-
			\|'''Other'''\|\| Change the order between the abstract and the introduction so the abstract is first.
	\|}		\|}

Ebkh: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| |- |'''Language'''|| |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| |- |'''Purpose explanation'''|| |- |'''Title of..."

2019-02-18T13:07:38Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| |- |'''Language'''|| |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| |- |'''Purpose explanation'''|| |- |'''Title of..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''||
|-
|'''Language'''||
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''||
|-
|'''Purpose explanation'''||
|-
|'''Title of the Wiki'''||
|-
|'''References'''||
|}