Talk:Project Management Reporting - Revision history

Dilan Casablanca: /* Answer 7 */

2019-02-25T10:39:57Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:39, 25 February 2019
Line 190:		Line 190:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The bibliography is not present in the article yet. I suggest to add all the texts and information consulted for writing the article. It would also be a good idea to look for new resources to implement the theoretical part of your topic. The references are shown in a great way with schematically sequence. Another positive aspect of the references is that all the resource's links are present. This is a smart and practical aspect, which could help readers.''

Dilan Casablanca: /* Answer 6 */

2019-02-25T10:33:54Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:33, 25 February 2019
Line 176:		Line 176:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article is not yet complete, so it can not be used for academic readings, or to fully explain the topic. At the moment, it can not help readers who need information through a web research, because there are gaps in the theoretical part. I suggest inserting more information, both general and specific on the subject.''

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

Dilan Casablanca: /* Answer 5 */

2019-02-25T10:29:35Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, 25 February 2019
Line 164:		Line 164:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''For now the article does not have great academic relevance. Although the arguments are well explained, they need to be further implemented in order to have more practical relevance. The theory on which the article is based, is not being well explained. At the moment is early to say whether the purpose of the article is relevant or not. I would add more theoretical information, but since the article is not yet complete, I'm sure it will be greatly improved.''

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

Dilan Casablanca: /* Answer 3 */

2019-02-25T10:24:30Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, 25 February 2019
Line 140:		Line 140:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''In general, the article is well written from a grammatical point of view. I have not found any spelling errors, but in some parts there are no prepositions. Perhaps there are some unnecessary fill words, which I personally would like to remove. I also recommend to be careful about some phrases that seem out of context.''

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

Dilan Casablanca: /* Answer 2 */

2019-02-25T10:21:59Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:21, 25 February 2019
Line 128:		Line 128:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The argument is easy to understand and at the moment there is a discreet logical flow in the article, but it needs to be improved. In some parts of the article there are paragraphs built on each other. Perhaps there is some contradiction between the various topics shown. Furthermore, I suggest inserting much more content regarding the theory on which the article is based.''

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

Dilan Casablanca: /* Answer 1 */

2019-02-25T10:14:54Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:14, 25 February 2019
Line 112:		Line 112:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''''		''The general overview of the article is well explained. Despite the fact that is clearly evident that the article is not finished yet, the main focus in understandable. I suggest to use bullet points and make lists where you have to show a lot of information related with the same topic.''

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

Dilan Casablanca: /* Answer 1 */

2019-02-25T10:10:42Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:10, 25 February 2019
Line 112:		Line 112:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''''

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

Dilan Casablanca: /* Answer 4 */

2019-02-25T10:08:31Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:08, 25 February 2019
Line 152:		Line 152:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''There are any figures in the article. I suggest to use graph and table in order to explain better the topic.''

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

Dilan Casablanca: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Daniel Vorting */

2019-02-25T09:01:18Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Daniel Vorting

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:01, 25 February 2019
Line 101:		Line 101:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Previous work is well references. No summarizing of articles. The article clearly based on empirical data and not opinion. I suggest you find a few more references to give increase the validity of your arguments.''		''Previous work is well references. No summarizing of articles. The article clearly based on empirical data and not opinion. I suggest you find a few more references to give increase the validity of your arguments.''


			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Dilan Casablanca''==
			===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''

S141018: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-24T11:28:46Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 24 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Good references - keep referencing.		\|'''References'''\|\| Good references - keep referencing.
	\|}		\|}

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Daniel Vorting''==
			===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===
			''I think the abstract is good. I like that you elaborate on communication as an important part of project management and thus clearly state the relevance of the article in regards to project management. I like that you point out that PRINCE2 is a widely used method, but you acknowledge that a number of different methods exist. You could consider seperating the 7 steps of the process into bulletpoints for easier readability. I think you should consider writing a little more in-depth on where your theory will be applied. E.g. saying 'project reporting is especially important in this or that situation - that would further increase the readers curiosity and let them know the exact importance and relevance of the article. Overall good abstract that explains why reporting is important, and how you are going to elaborate on it later in the article. Little note: line 4 says 'import' and i think you mean important :-)''

			===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===
			''A bit hard to elaborate on, when the article is only half-finished. But i believe the proposed flow of the article with theory on the project manager role, and a nice walkthrough of the important aspects of the different reports, and what they should contain. I would definitely say the chapters build upon each other. But you do need to write '''a lot''' more theoretical content to support your article, but i suspect that is what the 'reporting according to PRINCE2 standards is for (where you've written missing the first steps). The written arguments I consider to be quite consistent and well written but i suggest you write some more. ''

			===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===
			'' Generally well written. I consider the grammar to be fine - a few misses (an/a) and the one mentioned above in answer 1. I think your language is rather precise and easy to read. I would however consider removing the 'by reading this article it can be concluded that...' in your limitations. It is a lot of unnecessary words. You can easily start the sentence right on 'By having consistent reporting...' and it would still make fine sense. Your sentences have a tendency to be a bit long, but I have a problem with that myself, so i know it is hard to deal with :-)''

			===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===
			''No figures or tables are used in this article. I would consider using some to give a better overview - maybe an example of a template, as you write about in the checkpoint report''

			===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===
			''I believe what the author is aiming towards is a practical relevance of the article. By outlining what is relevant to include in the reports, a project manager can make concrete use of this article. I find the academic relevance a little harder to find, but i believe it might just be because the state-of-the-art chapter is not yet finished. I think the abstract quite clearly describes the relevance of the article. I suggest you approach the article a little more academically in your first chapter in order to balance out the practical and academic perspectives.''

			===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===
			''I believe the article to be interesting for a practitioner to read. However as mentioned above i think the article is a little thin on the academic contribution side. I believe the article is leaning a bit too much against the PRINCE2 book (Axelos). I did a quick search for 'managing project reports' and quickly found an article that describes the different reports (https://blog.learningtree.com/managing-project-communication-using-prince2-part-3-of-3/). So what you really need to focus on is how you differ from just outlining the reports and their content, towards how and where this should be applied. Take a step back and reflect on why this is a good method for handling communication in a project and support it with academic references. ''

			===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===
			''Previous work is well references. No summarizing of articles. The article clearly based on empirical data and not opinion. I suggest you find a few more references to give increase the validity of your arguments.''