Talk:Post-Project Review - Revision history

Jantalas: /* Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Jan Talaš */

2018-02-19T21:17:28Z

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Jan Talaš

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 19 February 2018
Line 113:		Line 113:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The summary fully focuses on the topic and provides a clear overview. It is well separated into paragraphs.

			Suggestion: Focus on the language and check for grammar or spelling errors.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 129:		Line 131:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		The argument is mostly clear, and the article has mostly a logical flow. The ''Skepticism towards Post-Projects Review'' doesn't fit in ''Big Idea'' and should be rather among ''Limitations''.
			The article seems to be consistent. However, some parts are unclear to me: '''Use Project Kick-Off Meetings''' for example. It doesn't state the relation to the topic and isn't even finished.
			The text on '''Responsibility of Post-Project Review''' In ''Limitations'' part isn't clear as it doesn't address any constraints or limitations. Arguments are not always entirely clear. (See '''Use Project Kick-Off Meetings''' for instance).

			Suggestion:

			Ask yourself: How is this part relevant to the topic (Post-Project Review) when reading individual sections of the article. The location of ''Skepticism towards Post-Projects Review'' should be considered.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 141:		Line 149:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		The writing has many grammatical and spelling errors. The language structure is poor sometimes and can be better.
			For example: ''The framework starts by having a kick-off meeting before executing a project, wherein a post-project review are conducted with an experienced facilitator after the end of project. Further on, knowledge brokers from the post-project review informs the kick-off meeting for the project.''
			The sentence structure makes it harder to read and understand. Some grammatical errors are presented.

			Suggestion:

			Have a friend to read the article and outline unclear sections and work on them afterwards. Use a tool for a grammar check (for example Grammarly - available online).
	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
	'''Figures and tables:'''		'''Figures and tables:'''
Line 153:		Line 166:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~		There are no figures or tables.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 165:		Line 178:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		The article is more practical oriented. The relevance is well stated in ''Post-Project Review to improve organizational learning'' part.

			Suggestion:

			State a particular real case to demonstrate the use of the method, if possible.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 177:		Line 194:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The article provides much information that can only be found in certain books. There are some references to different publications.

			Suggestion:

			Evaluate the current state and use of the method, if possible.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 191:		Line 212:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	'~~'Answer here''~~		Although different publications are mentioned in the article, there are no references or citations. Thus, the article doesn't summarize the key references. The text is based rather on empirical data.

			Suggestion:

			Make references when needed and describe their relevance in the end of the article.

Jantalas: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ioannis Papadantonakis */

2018-02-19T19:13:58Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ioannis Papadantonakis

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:13, 19 February 2018
Line 101:		Line 101:

	''Suggestions'': Create references and briefly summarize them at the end of the article.		''Suggestions'': Create references and briefly summarize them at the end of the article.



			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Jan Talaš''==
			===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''

Giannis: /* Answer 7 */

2018-02-19T18:21:06Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 19 February 2018
Line 98:		Line 98:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
			The article cites and acknowledges previous work. But, the references are absent from the text and therefore the key references are not summarized at the end of the article. Finally, it is quoting empirical data instead of opinion.

	''Suggestions'':		''Suggestions'': Create references and briefly summarize them at the end of the article.

Giannis: /* Answer 6 */

2018-02-19T18:20:19Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:20, 19 February 2018
Line 82:		Line 82:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
			The article stimulates the reader as it deals with a method that is widely used by Project Managers. Furthermore, the level of knowledge it offers is much higher than the information that someone can find by searching the web. It would be also useful making a reference to the new trends of the Post-Project Review.

	''Suggestion'':		''Suggestion'': Try to find new trends in the use of the Post-Project Review.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===

Giannis: /* Answer 5 */

2018-02-19T18:19:22Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:19, 19 February 2018
Line 68:		Line 68:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
			The article is characterized by practical relevance and the reader can easily understand the grade of relevance.

	''Suggestion'':		''Suggestion'': None

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===

Giannis: /* Answer 4 */

2018-02-19T18:18:57Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 19 February 2018
Line 54:		Line 54:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
			There are no figures or tables.

	''Suggestions'':		''Suggestions'': None

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===

Giannis: /* Answer 3 */

2018-02-19T18:18:34Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 19 February 2018
Line 40:		Line 40:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
			The writing has a few grammatical and spelling errors and the language can be also improved.

	''Suggestions'':		''Suggestions'': Check and read carefully the article with a view to correcting these mistakes.

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

Giannis: /* Answer 2 */

2018-02-19T18:18:00Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 19 February 2018
Line 26:		Line 26:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
			The article’s argument is clear as it describes a method, its application and the potential restrictions. Moreover, the article follows a mostly logical flow with only one exception. Specifically, the “Skepticism towards Post-Projects Review” would fit better into the ''Limitations'' Chapter. Finally, it is consistent in its argument and free of contradictions.

	''Suggestion'':		''Suggestion'': The “Skepticism towards Post-Projects Review” may be moved to the ''Limitations'' chapter.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===

Giannis: /* Answer 1 */

2018-02-19T18:16:56Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 19 February 2018
Line 10:		Line 10:
	The abstract presents with clarity the key points and the contribution of the article. Also, it is quite clear that the Project Manager is the reader of this article.		The abstract presents with clarity the key points and the contribution of the article. Also, it is quite clear that the Project Manager is the reader of this article.

	''~~Suggestion~~'': None		''Suggestions'': None

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

Giannis: /* Answer 1 */

2018-02-19T18:16:47Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 19 February 2018
Line 9:		Line 9:
	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	The abstract presents with clarity the key points and the contribution of the article. Also, it is quite clear that the Project Manager is the reader of this article.		The abstract presents with clarity the key points and the contribution of the article. Also, it is quite clear that the Project Manager is the reader of this article.

	''Suggestion'': None		''Suggestion'': None