Talk:DMAIC - Revision history

Mprokou: /* Answer 4 */

2019-02-25T10:14:08Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:14, 25 February 2019
Line 146:		Line 146:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''The figure is clear but it it too big		''The figure is clear but it is too big

	Yes		Yes

Mprokou: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T10:13:32Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:13, 25 February 2019
Line 83:		Line 83:
	General comment:		General comment:
	I think it is a fine article, however I think it is introducing a lot of tools very briefly. I think a discussion on when to use these or a deeper presentation of some of the tools would make it a lot stronger.		I think it is a fine article, however I think it is introducing a lot of tools very briefly. I think a discussion on when to use these or a deeper presentation of some of the tools would make it a lot stronger.


			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Maria Christina Prokou''==
			===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===
			''Yes

			-''

			===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===
			''Yes

			Yes

			Yes

			-''

			===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===
			''Yes

			Yes

			-''

			===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 figure is clear but it it too big

			Yes

			Maybe add some description below figure ''

			===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===
			''Medium

			Yes''

			===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===
			''Medium

			Yes''

			===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===
			''Yes

			There is no annotated bibliography

			No

			Add some annotated bibliography ''

MadsMohrMadsen at 18:36, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T18:36:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:36, 24 February 2019
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Mads Mohr Madsen		Mads Mohr Madsen

	Question 1		Question 1
	Quality of the summary:		Quality of the summary:

MadsMohrMadsen at 18:36, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T18:36:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:36, 24 February 2019
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Make sure to add references wherever needed.		\|'''References'''\|\| Make sure to add references wherever needed.
	\|}		\|}

			Mads Mohr Madsen
			Question 1
			Quality of the summary:
			Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
			* A: Yes.
			What would you suggest to improve?
			* A:


			Question 2
			Structure and logic of the article:
			Is the argument clear?
			* A: yes
			Is there a logical flow to the article?
			* A: yes
			Does one part build upon the other?
			* A: yes
			Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
			* A: yes
			What would you suggest to improve?
			* A: stucture is fine


			Question 3
			Grammar and style:
			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
			* A: yes
			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
			* A: yes

			Question 4
			Figures and tables:
			Are figures and tables clear?
			* A: its quite big. However, are you sure you are allowed to use it? Maybe check this with the TA's.
			Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
			* A: yes
			What would you suggest to improve?
			* A: talk more about the figure, rather than just "check the figure if you need to see when to use this tool"


			Question 5
			Interest and relevance:
			Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
			* A: medium
			Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
			* A: no. There could have been more about when to use this method and when not to, pros and cons stuff like that.


			Question 6
			Depth of treatment:
			Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
			* A: no
			Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
			* A: no


			Question 7
			Annotated bibliography:
			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
			* A: yes
			Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
			* A: no and there is mainly websites, where as in this course they have said quite clearly that they prefer books.
			Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
			* A: Yes

			General comment:
			I think it is a fine article, however I think it is introducing a lot of tools very briefly. I think a discussion on when to use these or a deeper presentation of some of the tools would make it a lot stronger.

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

2019-02-18T22:26:47Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:26, 18 February 2019
Line 4:		Line 4:

	{\|		{\|
	\|'''Text clarity & language'''\|\| Good, however there's a few mistakes (e.g. "it is almost impossible to measure and improve, if you do now know where to start." - you probably meant "if you do not know where to start."		\|'''Text clarity & language'''\|\| Good, however there's a few mistakes (e.g. "it is almost impossible to measure and improve, if you do now know where to start." - you probably meant "if you do not know where to start.")
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| Good.		\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| Good.

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== I'm unsure whether or not your abstract at this point is complete, however find my feedback below. {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good, howeve..."

2019-02-18T22:26:31Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== I'm unsure whether or not your abstract at this point is complete, however find my feedback below. {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good, howeve..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

I'm unsure whether or not your abstract at this point is complete, however find my feedback below.

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good, however there's a few mistakes (e.g. "it is almost impossible to measure and improve, if you do now know where to start." - you probably meant "if you do not know where to start."
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good.
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Well elaborated.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Make sure to add references wherever needed.
|}