Talk:Stephen Covey's seven principles - Revision history

WhyLoseTime at 18:40, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T18:40:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 25 February 2019
Line 217:		Line 217:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''The article is in serious need of proof-reading..sorry! :)		''The article is in serious need of proof-reading..sorry! BTW 'sharping' is not a word :)

	The language used is great; precise, without fill and easily legible.		The language used is great; precise, without fill and easily legible.

WhyLoseTime at 18:38, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T18:38:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:38, 25 February 2019
Line 169:		Line 169:
	Add more citations, and introduce if his findings are backed by empirical data.		Add more citations, and introduce if his findings are backed by empirical data.

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Place your name here~~''==

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Martin Kirk''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''
Line 178:		Line 180:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Very clear. The ending of the abstract is however a bit abrupt/sudden. I think one more (closing) sentence would help, informing about the key point/conclusion of the article. I understand however if this has been left out at present, given this is only the first draft, and the conclusion is not yet finalised.''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 194:		Line 196:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The argument of the article is very clear and concise, just as the title states.

			There is a very easily followed flow through the article. The joy of writing about an already highly-structured topic! :)

			The seven parts somewhat build on top of each other, but also compliment each other, which is all good.

			The article is very consistent in its arguments (again, you are writing about seven discrete sub-topics, so I would naturally expect this consistency).

			Suggested improvements would be graphical elements to accompany the text (but I suspect they are on their way, given the empty figure at the bottom, ready to be populated, and perhaps inserted several places in the article).
			''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 206:		Line 217:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer~~ here''		''The article is in serious need of proof-reading..sorry! :)

			The language used is great; precise, without fill and easily legible.

			No further improvements necessary here.
			''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 218:		Line 234:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''I suspect you prioritised text over illustrations in this first draft, which given the 'effectiveness-efficiency' paradigm in your article is wise.

			My recommendation would be one illustration per principle (7 in all), plus two or three more somewhere appropriate.
			''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 230:		Line 249:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article in its present form is highly interesting but probably more for academics rather than practitioners.

			The article does a good job in the abstract of saying why this topic is important. However, as yet it is not materialised in practical recommendations.
			However, I suspect this may come in the conclusion..

			I would suggest finding an angle on this topic that interests you personally the most, and then turning that aspect into a practical recommendation. Don't forget to mention other generic aspects too, however, but place most weight on one key thought/insight.''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 242:		Line 266:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article is generally very interesting to a broad audience, academics as practitioners.

			It definitely delivers information more efficiently than a standard web search; it strikes me as a combination of a dictionary definition on each of the seven principles and a review of Covey's book; very nicely weighted indeed!

			I would not change anything in its style; it really engages the reader.
			''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 256:		Line 285:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Citations and bibliography clearly needs more elaborate work.
			Annotated bibliography section is missing; don't forget this one! :)

			Empirical data is widely used, making the article very neutral and credible.

			Suggestions are obvious, but again good prioritisation of your first draft time! :)
			''

Martineberholstcarlsen: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Martin Eberholst Carlsen */

2019-02-24T18:06:30Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Martin Eberholst Carlsen

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ===Answer 1===
-''Answer here''
+The summary gives a good introduction to what we are about to read. Like the quote: "Interesting parts of Covey’s thinking is how you must be able to manage yourself to manage other people, thus working in projects." as it gives an idea why this is important in Project Management. I haven't seen a lot of "cons" in the article, but I guess that will be in the Updated version. Could maybe use a final concluding sentence binding it all together, but otherwise good.
 ===Question 2 · TEXT===
@@ Line 41: / Line 43: @@
 ===Answer 2===
-''Answer here''
+Is the argument clear?
 ===Question 3 · TEXT===
@@ Line 53: / Line 71: @@
 ===Answer 3===
-''Answer here''
+Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
 ===Question 4 · TEXT===
@@ Line 65: / Line 97: @@
 ===Answer 4===
-''Answer here''
+Are figures and tables clear?
 ===Question 5 · TEXT===
@@ Line 77: / Line 117: @@
 ===Answer 5===
-''Answer here''
+Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
 ===Question 6 · TEXT===
@@ Line 89: / Line 136: @@
 ===Answer 6===
-''Answer here''
+Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
 ===Question 7 · TEXT===
@@ Line 103: / Line 157: @@
 ===Answer 7===
-''Answer here''
+Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
 ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==

Martineberholstcarlsen at 20:33, 22 February 2019

2019-02-22T20:33:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 22 February 2019
Line 16:		Line 16:
	\|}		\|}

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Sarantis Pavlidis~~''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Martin Eberholst Carlsen''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

Martineberholstcarlsen at 20:33, 22 February 2019

2019-02-22T20:33:27Z

Show changes

Raquel Valente: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| Needs to ..."

2019-02-19T01:08:12Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| Needs to ..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Good
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good
|-
|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| Needs to be elaborated and more specific
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Missing some references. Here are the guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|-
|'''Other'''|| It lacks a bit of context

|}