Talk:Data Quality Management - Revision history

Radoslaw: /* Answer 6 */

2018-02-19T21:49:52Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 19 February 2018
Line 173:		Line 173:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	'''As mentioned before, the article is well written and it is found very interesting to read. It is clear that the author has made a great effort while doing research and made a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search.		''As mentioned before, the article is well written and it is found very interesting to read. It is clear that the author has made a great effort while doing research and made a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search.

	Looking forward to reading the "Implementation" .		Looking forward to reading the "Implementation" .

Radoslaw at 21:48, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T21:48:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:48, 19 February 2018
Line 101:		Line 101:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Abstract introduces to the key focus and makes insights of the article clear. It gives a proper overview what the article is about.

			Suggestion - highlight that the article is relevant for programs. ''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 117:		Line 119:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article has a logical flow. From the very beginning to the end, reader is guided by the author. Even for person who is lacking knowledge in this particular area, the article is very useful. The writing is free of contradictions.''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 129:		Line 131:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''It was hard to find any mistakes.Grammar and style are undeservedly. The findings are :
			*DQM is is the management...

			and this sounds incorrect:
			* As such, data is becomingly increasingly valuable to program and ... ''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 141:		Line 147:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Figures are a proper support for the article and clearly show the key points of the topic

			Suggestion: First introduced figure is numbered as 2A, where number 2 corresponds to a chapter number I guess? For the sake of transparency would it make sense to number also the chapters? ''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 153:		Line 161:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article is of high practical and academic relevance. From the very beginning it is stated why DQM is important and relevant regardig program management. ''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 165:		Line 173:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	'~~'Answer here~~''		'''As mentioned before, the article is well written and it is found very interesting to read. It is clear that the author has made a great effort while doing research and made a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search.

			Looking forward to reading the "Implementation" .

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 179:		Line 189:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''''References and bibliography contain highly valued sources supporting the article.''

Sarah at 21:03, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T21:03:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 19 February 2018
Line 8:		Line 8:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''Very nice abstract with a good and logical flow. It clearly states the key focus and motivation behind the article. I have no suggestions for improvement of the abstract quality and content albeit there are minor grammatical confusions. (This might just be me, but I will discuss them in the grammatical section) ''		''Very nice abstract with a good and logical flow. It clearly states the key focus and motivation behind the article. As the article revolves around programs rather than projects or portfolios I would consider mentioning it in the abstract to make it crystal clear to the reader. Other than that I have no suggestions for improvement of the abstract quality and content albeit there are minor grammatical confusions. (This might just be me, but I will discuss them in the grammatical section) ''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===

Sarah at 20:59, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T20:59:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, 19 February 2018
Line 8:		Line 8:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Very nice abstract with a good and logical flow. It clearly states the key focus and motivation behind the article. I have no suggestions for improvement of the abstract quality and content albeit there are minor grammatical confusions. (This might just be me, but I will discuss them in the grammatical section) ''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 24:		Line 24:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article is very structured making it very nice and easy for the reader. There is a logical flow throughout the article, which ensures that the reader is never confused or surprised by what is written in each section. It is also very nice with all the sections - it provides a clear overview to the reader. I have no suggestions for improvement, other than keep up the good work structuring the rest of the article!''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 36:		Line 36:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer~~ here''		''The English is of exceptional high quality. It is clear and easily readable without grammatical negligences or confusing vocabulary. The only suggestions for improvement I have are in the Abstract:
			- "DQM is is the management of people,..." - here there is "is" twice.
			- "As such, data is becomingly increasingly valuable ..." - here I am not sure whether you can write "becomingly increasingly"?
			"Data quality has a significant impact on both the efficiency and effectiveness on organisations..." - here I would maybe write "of organisations?''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 48:		Line 51:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Very nice use of tables and figures. They are of high quality providing the reader with a good and visual overview, summarizing the key points of the article. I also like that you keep the same color theme throughout the figures - it gives a nice feeling of structure and consistency. ''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 60:		Line 63:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article is both of high practical and academic relevance. The topic is extremely relevant right now and all the arguments and statements are well justified for by relevant references and standards. I actually have no suggestions for improvement as the article is of very high quality and relevance from a practical and academical perspective.''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 72:		Line 75:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''It is equally interesting for a practitioner an academic to read, as the article provides hands-on recommendations with well-funded argumentation from relevant references. It most certainly makes a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search. The article contains all relevant aspects of Data Quality Management on a very detailed level without being filled with unnecessary fill-words. I really look forward to read the final version.''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 86:		Line 89:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''References are used appropriately throughout the article and there is absolutely nothing to improve - it is really an article of high academical quality.
			The annotated bibliography provides interesting insight into the references and the reason for using them in the article.''

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==

Sarah: Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sarah Romane Bourdiaux Terp''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or co..."

2018-02-19T17:06:02Z

Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sarah Romane Bourdiaux Terp''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or co..."

New page

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sarah Romane Bourdiaux Terp''==
===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''

===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''

===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''

===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''

===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===
''Answer here''

===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''

==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==
===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''

===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''

===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''

===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''

===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===
''Answer here''

===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''