Talk:Conflict Resolution in Project Management - Revision history

RikkeK at 20:57, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T20:57:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 25 February 2019
Line 101:		Line 101:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''No Annotated bibliography yet, as there are no references.''		''No Annotated bibliography yet, as there are no references.''



			==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===
			''The key focus is claer and well stated. The direction which the writer has chosen is clear and relevant.''

			===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===
			''A good flow with lots of sections-headers to get a good overview. The article is built rationally and just need a good discussion and summation in the end. ''

			===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===
			''Spotless in the the articles current state.''

			===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 or tabels yet''

			===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===
			''Well defined focus, but still need some theory.''

			===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===
			''Good use for language so the current state is interesting. Promises well for the rest for the article.''

			===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===
			''Can't tell from the current state of the article.''

RikkeK: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T20:49:37Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:49, 25 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed.		\|'''References'''\|\| Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed.
	\|}		\|}



	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Rasmus Bjerg''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Rasmus Bjerg''==

Rasmusbjerg: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg */

2019-02-25T10:55:50Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:55, 25 February 2019
Line 24:		Line 24:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~There's only an abstract, so this peer review is hard to do, but, the~~ key focus is clear. It would ~~maybe not write~~ so ~~much about what a milestone is in~~ the ~~abstract~~.''		''The key focus is pretty clear. At the moment (article clearly not finished) theres a lot of models/tools being used, and not any explaning to the models. I would explain them, so the reader need to look them up, or know them beforehand.''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 40:		Line 40:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''Logic is pretty clear. ~~Good~~ build up in the ~~abstract~~ ''		''Logic is pretty clear. a nice build up in the article. I needs an "ending" or something to wrap it up. ''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 51:		Line 51:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===I could'nt find any errors. ~~===~~		===Answer 3===
	~~''Answer here~~''		''I could'nt find any errors, but a lot of the text is still not done.''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 76:		Line 76:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~hard~~ to ~~determine with only~~ the ~~abstract~~''		''The article have a good focus on what to do, but there's a lack of explaning the process in this. but again this i clearly not finished''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 88:		Line 88:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~same as answer 5~~.''		''Its hard to determine when so much is still missing.''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 102:		Line 102:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~also no~~ Annotated bibliography yet''		''No Annotated bibliography yet, as there are no references.''

Rasmusbjerg: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T10:45:09Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:45, 25 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed.		\|'''References'''\|\| Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed.
	\|}		\|}



			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Rasmus Bjerg''==
			===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===
			''There's only an abstract, so this peer review is hard to do, but, the key focus is clear. It would maybe not write so much about what a milestone is in the abstract.''

			===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===
			''Logic is pretty clear. Good build up in the abstract ''

			===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?

			===I could'nt find any errors. ===
			''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===
			''There are no figures or tabels yet''

			===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===
			''hard to determine with only the abstract''

			===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 answer 5.''

			===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===
			''also no Annotated bibliography yet''

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-19T23:09:01Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:09, 19 February 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:

	{\|		{\|
	\|'''Text clarity & language'''\|\| ~~The text is coherent~~.		\|'''Text clarity & language'''\|\| Good, however there's a few grammatical mistakes.
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| Good.		\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| Good.

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is coherent. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good. |- |'''Article purpose explanatio..."

2019-02-19T23:08:34Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is coherent. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good. |- |'''Article purpose explanatio..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is coherent.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good.
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Missing. An explanation of the article purpose and eventually the target group should be highlighted.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant.
|-
|'''References'''|| Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed.
|}