Talk:Project Sponsorship - Revision history

DimKok: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos" */ new section

2019-02-25T22:33:23Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos": new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:33, 25 February 2019
Line 101:		Line 101:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	I would summarise the content of each reference.		I would summarise the content of each reference.

			== Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos" ==

			===Question 1 · TEXT===
			'''Quality of the summary:'''

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

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 1===
			Very definition oriented, I would add some further explanations or practical approaches.


			===Question 2 · TEXT===
			'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

			Is the argument clear? Yes

			Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

			Does one part build upon the other? Yes

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

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 2===
			Well established, I would suggest one or two more topics added to complete the profile of project sponsorship.

			===Question 3 · TEXT===
			'''Grammar and style:'''

			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes

			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 3===
			Broad vocabulary, maybe shorten some sentences.


			===Question 4 · TEXT===
			'''Figures and tables:'''

			Are figures and tables clear? yes

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

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 4===
			Figures missing.


			===Question 5 · TEXT===
			'''Interest and relevance:'''

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

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

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 5===
			-

			===Question 6 · TEXT===
			'''Depth of treatment:'''

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

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

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 6===
			Some more focus on the surroundings of the sponsor management and its relation to program management.

			===Question 7 · TEXT===
			'''Annotated bibliography:'''

			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

			Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No

			Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 7===
			References might need description and italic font in the appropriate places.

EdoBraa: /* Answer 2 */

2019-02-24T16:29:47Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 24 February 2019
Line 37:		Line 37:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	==Answer 2==		===Answer 2===
	I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents.		I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents.

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

EdoBraa: /* Answer 2 */

2019-02-24T16:29:19Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 24 February 2019
Line 37:		Line 37:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 2===		==Answer 2==
	I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents.		I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents.

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

EdoBraa: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini */

2019-02-24T16:29:02Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 24 February 2019
Line 38:		Line 38:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
			I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents.

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

EdoBraa at 16:24, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T16:24:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 24 February 2019
Line 27:		Line 27:
	'''Structure and logic of the article:'''		'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

	Is the argument clear? ~~Mostly~~		Is the argument clear? Yes

	Is there a logical flow to the article? Mostly		Is there a logical flow to the article? Mostly
Line 38:		Line 38:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	~~I would develop the missing chapter and I would add the limitation of project sponsorship.~~

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 74:		Line 74:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
			I would develop the missing chapter and I would add the limitation of project sponsorship.

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

EdoBraa: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini */

2019-02-24T16:20:23Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 24 February 2019
Line 38:		Line 38:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
			I would develop the missing chapter and I would add the limitation of project sponsorship.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
	'''Grammar and style:'''		'''Grammar and style:'''

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

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	~~''Answer here''~~		I would suggest to make some sentences shorter, in order to make easier the understanding.

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

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~		I would add some figures to support the ideas.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
	'''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?

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~

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

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		I would add some tools that are used in dealing with project sponsorship

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
	'''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? no

	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?

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~		I would summarise the content of each reference.

EdoBraa at 16:10, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T16:10:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:10, 24 February 2019
Line 22:		Line 22:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	I would outline the purpose of the article		I would outline the purpose of the article and I would introduce a brief definition of project sponsorship to better understand the following.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Does one part build upon the other? Mostly		Does one part build upon the other? Mostly

	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?

EdoBraa at 16:06, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T16:06:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:06, 24 February 2019
Line 27:		Line 27:
	'''Structure and logic of the article:'''		'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

	Is the argument clear?		Is the argument clear? Mostly

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

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

	Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?		Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
Line 38:		Line 38:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	~~''Answer here''~~

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

EdoBraa at 15:57, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T15:57:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:57, 24 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Remember to make correct references (websites). Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references		\|'''References'''\|\| Remember to make correct references (websites). Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
	\|}		\|}

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Edoardo Braccini''==
			===Question 1 · TEXT===
			'''Quality of the summary:'''

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

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 1===
			I would outline the purpose of the article

			===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 good. However, it can be more concise and coherent. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''..."

2019-02-18T22:59:44Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good. However, it can be more concise and coherent. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good. However, it can be more concise and coherent.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good.
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| This needs to be elaborated.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references (websites). Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|}