Talk:Conceptual levels of competence - Revision history

RikkeA at 23:19, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T23:19:44Z

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 ===Answer 7===
 Key references is placed at the end of the article, and it seems like the key points in the article is based on facts and not opinions. The references is familiar books to this course, so it looks like a good reference list to me.
 ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Rikke Andersen''==

RikkeA at 23:10, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T23:10:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:10, 25 February 2019
Line 192:		Line 192:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	'~~'Answer here''~~		The language is confusing, I'm not certain what is meant by the author.
			The three different categories discussed in the article are listed which gives a nice overview.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 208:		Line 209:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The three categories stated from the beginning gives a natural flow throughout.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 226:		Line 227:

	Are figures and tables clear?		Are figures and tables clear?
	~~No figures yet~~		Only one figure, nice and clear

	Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?		Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
	-		The figure supports the text

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	-		Maybe a figure or two more - maybe of how "competence" changes as you move from an individual to teams to organizations

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 238:		Line 239:

	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?		Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
			The topic is academically relevant, not sure if it is practical

	Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?		Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
			More time could be spent on explaining the importance

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
			Elaborate on the importance of the topic, what happens if the correct level of competence is not present?

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 247:		Line 251:

	Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?		Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
			I think it will be once finished

	Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?		Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
			Not at the moment

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
			-
	~~===Answer 6===~~
	~~''Answer here''~~

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 259:		Line 263:

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
			Currently only one annotated reference

	Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?		Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

	Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?		Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
			Seems to be

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
			Add more references as you get further into depth with the topic
	~~===Answer 7===~~
	~~''Answer here''~~

RikkeA: /* Question 5 · TEXT */

2019-02-25T22:50:05Z

Question 5 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 25 February 2019
Line 242:		Line 242:

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?


	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===

RikkeA at 22:48, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T22:48:14Z

Show changes

RobertK: /* Answer 7 */

2019-02-25T15:26:30Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:26, 25 February 2019
Line 104:		Line 104:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	Key references is placed at the end of the article, and it seems like the key points in the article is based on facts and not opinions.		Key references is placed at the end of the article, and it seems like the key points in the article is based on facts and not opinions. The references is familiar books to this course, so it looks like a good reference list to me.

RobertK: /* Answer 7 */

2019-02-25T15:25:41Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:25, 25 February 2019
Line 104:		Line 104:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Key references is placed at the end of the article, and it seems like the key points in the article is based on facts and not opinions.

RobertK: /* Answer 6 */

2019-02-25T15:24:08Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 25 February 2019
Line 90:		Line 90:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The article is interesting and not too academic. It focuses on different aspects and how they are applied, which is good because it makes it easy to keep track of what the article is about. The depth of the article also seem to fit with the length of the article. If the article is longer, then it also needs to go deeper into the material. Looks good.

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

RobertK: /* Answer 5 */

2019-02-25T15:08:35Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:08, 25 February 2019
Line 78:		Line 78:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Through the abstract, it becomes clear that this text is related to the work of the Project Manager. Based on this, the article is very relevant. However, it could be explained more how the pm-competence is related to organizations and so on.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===

RobertK: /* Answer 4 */

2019-02-25T15:05:56Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:05, 25 February 2019
Line 66:		Line 66:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The figure is clear and fits good in with the text. I noticed that the bibliography is aligned with the picture even though they are not related. This should be changed in my opinion.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===

RobertK: /* Answer 3 */

2019-02-25T15:04:29Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 25 February 2019
Line 54:		Line 54:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	There is spelling mistakes and some ~~gramatical erros~~		There is spelling mistakes and some grammatical errors, especially in the abstract. But there is not a lot of errors.

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===