Talk:Lean Approach to Scheduling in Construction Projects - Revision history

S123666: /* Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Grøndal */

2018-02-19T16:33:16Z

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Grøndal

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 19 February 2018
Line 147:		Line 147:
	'''Interest and relevance:'''		'''Interest and relevance:'''

	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?		Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes

	Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?		Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
Line 159:		Line 159:
	'''Depth of treatment:'''		'''Depth of treatment:'''

	Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?		Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

	Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?		Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? I have not made a cursory web search :P

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
Line 171:		Line 171:
	'''Annotated bibliography:'''		'''Annotated bibliography:'''

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? yes

	Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?		Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes

	Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?		Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

2018-02-19T16:26:43Z

Question 4 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:26, 19 February 2018
Line 135:		Line 135:
	'''Figures and tables:'''		'''Figures and tables:'''

	Are figures and tables clear?		Are figures and tables clear? Yes

	Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?		Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

2018-02-19T16:24:59Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 19 February 2018
Line 130:		Line 130:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''Review and ~~correcting~~ minor errors''		''Review and correct minor errors''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===

2018-02-19T16:22:49Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 19 February 2018
Line 130:		Line 130:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Review and correcting minor errors''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===

2018-02-19T16:21:34Z

Question 3 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:21, 19 February 2018
Line 123:		Line 123:
	'''Grammar and style:'''		'''Grammar and style:'''

	Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?		Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly Yes

	Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?		Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

2018-02-19T16:18:16Z

Question 2 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 19 February 2018
Line 107:		Line 107:
	'''Structure and logic of the article:'''		'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

	Is the argument clear?		Is the argument clear? Yes

	Is there a logical flow to the article?		Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

	Does one part build upon the other?		Does one part build upon the other? Yes

	Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?		Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

2018-02-19T16:16:54Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, 19 February 2018
Line 102:		Line 102:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''I think it could be more clear that the main focus is on Location Based Scheduling and not necessarily a comparison between LBS and CPM ''

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

2018-02-19T16:12:05Z

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:12, 19 February 2018
Line 93:		Line 93:
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Place your name here~~''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Mads Grøndal''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

	Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?		Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
Line 181:		Line 181:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''


	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==

2018-02-19T15:53:52Z

Question 7 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 19 February 2018
Line 82:		Line 82:
	'''Annotated bibliography:'''		'''Annotated bibliography:'''

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

	Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?		Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

	Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?		Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

2018-02-19T15:53:02Z

Question 6 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 19 February 2018
Line 70:		Line 70:
	'''Depth of treatment:'''		'''Depth of treatment:'''

	Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?		Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

	Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?		Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?