Talk:Scheduling: Critical path, PERT, Gantt - Revision history

S173143 at 19:56, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T19:56:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 19 February 2018
Line 103:		Line 103:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Only one reference has been used so far but a good one. I am sure there is more to come.''		''Only one reference has been used so far but a good one. I am sure there is more to come.''


			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Ana Torrijos Mediavilla''==
			===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===
			''The abstract is concise and introduces well the topics that your article will discuss (Critical Path, PERT, Gantt Charts). It is also clear why this topic is relevant for project management.''

			===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===
			''Cannot really tell since only the abstract is written.''

			===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===
			''The language you used is concise and there are no grammar mistakes.''

			===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===
			''There’s no tables or figures yet.''

			===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===
			''It is quite clear that the article will be relevant and beneficial for project managers, as it will help them finish projects on time.''

			===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===
			''Cannot really tell since only the abstract has been written.''

			===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===
			''The reference provided is reliable.''

Nanna at 19:40, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T19:40:40Z

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
-==Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018):==
+==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Nanna''==
-'''Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?'''
+Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
-'''Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable?'''
+What would you suggest to improve?
-The grammar and style is fine and easy to read. However, be aware of inconsistency of the usage of capital letter (eg. Critical Path vs critical path)
+===Answer 1===
-'''Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible?:
+===Question 2 · TEXT===
-Only one reference has been used so far but a good one. I am sure there is more to come.
+'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

Nanna at 18:09, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T18:09:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:09, 18 February 2018
Line 12:		Line 12:

	'''Relevance of article''' Definitely relevant, but I would be cautious with writing about two relatively large topics PERT and Gantt. This could work as long as the article addresses the necessary depth beyond a normal web search.		'''Relevance of article''' Definitely relevant, but I would be cautious with writing about two relatively large topics PERT and Gantt. This could work as long as the article addresses the necessary depth beyond a normal web search.



			==Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018):==

			'''Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?'''
			Yes, indeed. You have chosen a highly relevant topic for project managers. The purpose is explaned clearly in the first lines.

			'''Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable?'''
			Since only the abstract has been written so far there is not yet provided a hands on guidande for the reader to apply the method. A lot of the points is to be answered when more then the abstract has been written.

			The grammar and style is fine and easy to read. However, be aware of inconsistency of the usage of capital letter (eg. Critical Path vs critical path)

			'''Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible?:
			Only one reference has been used so far but a good one. I am sure there is more to come.

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "'''Text clarity''' Clear '''Language''' Good '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good - consider spelling out PERT and briefly introduce a one liner on what..."

2018-02-13T14:52:00Z

Created page with "'''Text clarity''' Clear '''Language''' Good '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good - consider spelling out PERT and briefly introduce a one liner on what..."

New page

'''Text clarity''' Clear

'''Language''' Good

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good - consider spelling out PERT and briefly introduce a one liner on what PERT is

'''Purpose explanation''' Well addressed (e.g. clear that the Project Manager is the reader), but can be improved by clearly describing the article purpose e.g. "the purpose of this article is to address issues around... by combining PERT and Gantt..." (this is an example on how it could be incorporated in the abstract already written)

'''Title of the Wiki''' Title indicates that this article will be large (see "relevance of article")

'''References''' Good reference to PMBOK, but try to incorporate more relevant references from the mandatory list of references

'''Relevance of article''' Definitely relevant, but I would be cautious with writing about two relatively large topics PERT and Gantt. This could work as long as the article addresses the necessary depth beyond a normal web search.