S190056 at 19:08, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T19:08:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:08, 25 February 2019
Line 106:		Line 106:
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
	Disregarded, as you wish.		Disregarded, as you wish.


			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Stefano Di Lenardo''==
			===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===
			It has to be completed.

			===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 is clear and interesting, however it will be nice to see it finished.

			===Question 3 · TEXT===

			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 English is fluent, no grammar mistakes.

			===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===
			they make the idea very clear, good job.

			===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===
			The topic is relevant and interesting to read.

			===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===
			To be completed.

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

2019-02-25T14:16:00Z

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

New page

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sune Baldus''==
===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''

Disregarded as you wish.

===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''

Since only one part is finished, it is hard to say anything about the flow, but it seems like you are on the right path with the idea of writing about how to utilize (temporal) context.

===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''

It is nice to read the finished parts. Understandable, clear and concise, and without spelling 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===
''Answer here''

Good choice of figures, they do seem a little unsharp, though. They really bring a lot to the understanding of the topic.

===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''

The relevance of this article could be improved in many ways:

For academic purposes: compare literature on subject

For practical purposes: present key insights from gained knowledge and create a guideline of what a manager needs to be aware of, or how s/he can improve performance with the different elements in mind..

===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''

The organizational context is light and easily written, delivers a great overview of the way organisations can be organized. I do have a hunch that there might be more to External context?

The article is definitely not in-depth with the topic, but creates a good overview so far. Chapters with application and limitations would spiff up the article as a whole.

===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''
Disregarded, as you wish.

Talk:Context element - Revision history

S190056 at 19:08, 25 February 2019

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