Talk:Unidentified Risks - Revision history

S182573 at 19:53, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T19:53:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:53, 25 February 2019
Line 192:		Line 192:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The bibliography is properly cited.''

S182573 at 19:52, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T19:52:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 25 February 2019
Line 178:		Line 178:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''This topic is interesting for every project manager but I would explain in better detail how to define this risks and how can we solve them or if there is no way of doing it.''		''This topic is interesting for every project manager but I would explain in better detail how to define this risks and how can we solve them or if there is no way of doing it. In the first paragraph of the abstract you mention some studies that have found a way to have mor certainty about this risks, it would be interesting to have details of this studies.''

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

S182573 at 19:51, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T19:51:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:51, 25 February 2019
Line 104:		Line 104:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	Explanation about the sources are not given yet. I would suggest taking the most used sources and write why you think the sources are valid sources.		Explanation about the sources are not given yet. I would suggest taking the most used sources and write why you think the sources are valid sources.

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Jokin Brito''==
			===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 summary is good, it explains what the article is about and it gives a clear idea of the concept you are going to write. I would write a better explanation on the connection with project management and the importance of the unknown unknowns''

			===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===
			''The argument is clear, although I would try to be more focused in the main topic than with explaining the other types of risks with so many detail. I would also give some examples of the unknown unkowns and how to tackle them.''

			===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 grammar is good and the text is well understood. No unnecessary language''

			===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===
			''The figures are clear and relevant to the text''

			===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 think the topic is very relevant for project managers but I would be very careful explaining the tools and how to tackle this type of risks, it could make the difference for a very good and useful article''

			===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===
			''This topic is interesting for every project manager but I would explain in better detail how to define this risks and how can we solve them or if there is no way of doing it.''

			===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''

AJO: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T14:53:49Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:53, 25 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Complete adding your references.		\|'''References'''\|\| Complete adding your references.
	\|}		\|}

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Johannes Oschinsky''==
			===Question 1 · TEXT===
			Review of the article: A Guide to Risk Management in Construction Projects

			'''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 shows a good view on what the article is going to be about. For me it is missing the relation towards project management. A suggestion is to mention its importance in one sentence.


			===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===
			There is a logical flow in the article which can be followed. The parts are well structured and build upon. Good way of first explaining what uncertainty is and afterward what kind of uncertainty exists. Again, for me it is missing why it relates to project management.

			===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===
			It is well written and easy to understand. Nothing to add.

			===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===
			The figures are good to understand and relates to the writing. No need off improvement.


			===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===
			Using the quotes from different people underlines the relevance of the topic. Unfortunately, the topic about the tools are not written yet, but you seem to include also the practical way of how to identify uncertainty.
			===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===
			It really helps to understand what uncertainty is and which kind of uncertainty exist and that in just one article. I think it is a good page to get clarity about that topic. It tells exactly what you have to know about the topic and does not turn too much into detail.

			===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===
			Explanation about the sources are not given yet. I would suggest taking the most used sources and write why you think the sources are valid sources.

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is okay, however the beginning needs to be more coherent. Consider using brackets less often. I would n..."

2019-02-18T22:45:11Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is okay, however the beginning needs to be more coherent. Consider using brackets less often. I would n..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is okay, however the beginning needs to be more coherent. Consider using brackets less often. I would not include the agenda in the abstract as it's automatically generated.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good.
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Well elaborated.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Complete adding your references.
|}