Talk:Effective Brainstorming - Revision history

S172420: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon */

2019-02-25T19:42:14Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 25 February 2019
Line 22:		Line 22:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The summary is pretty general but it gives some insights about the further development of the article. I would anyway spend more words on the description of the tool (just a bit more deep) and on more specific purposes of the article.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 38:		Line 38:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	~~''Answer here''~~
			The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 50:		Line 51:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	~~''Answer here''~~
			There are some minors grammatical aspects that could be improved.

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 62:		Line 64:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~
			The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 74:		Line 77:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~
			The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 86:		Line 90:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~
			The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 100:		Line 105:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	'~~'Answer here''~~
			The reference used is fine. Obviously there's the need to add more references.

S172420: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T18:26:56Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:26, 25 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Good reference. Make sure to use the list of references when appropriate.		\|'''References'''\|\| Good reference. Make sure to use the list of references when appropriate.
	\|}		\|}

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Alberto Tognon==
			===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''

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is okay, however there's a few grammatical errors. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| G..."

2019-02-19T08:29:01Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is okay, however there's a few grammatical errors. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| G..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is okay, however there's a few grammatical errors.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good.
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Good. However, how a link to engineering project, program or portfolio management needs to be made.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| A link to engineering project, program or portfolio management needs to be made. This is not organizational management or a description of interactive works (e.g. strategy and planning methods).
|-
|'''References'''|| Good reference. Make sure to use the list of references when appropriate.
|}