Talk:Vico Office as a project management tool - Revision history

Ina: /* Answer 7 */

2018-02-19T22:15:36Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:15, 19 February 2018
Line 106:		Line 106:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~
			The key references are mentioned in the abstract, but just remember to include the mandatory references in the final article.

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: David Baldursson==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: David Baldursson==

Ina: /* Answer 6 */

2018-02-19T22:11:34Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 19 February 2018
Line 91:		Line 91:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~
			I think it can be useful for a practitioner.

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

Ina: /* Answer 5 */

2018-02-19T22:09:25Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 19 February 2018
Line 79:		Line 79:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~		It is a relevant tool and practical since it is mentioned in the abstract that it is a project management tool and used in the construction industry.

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

Ina: /* Answer 4 */

2018-02-19T21:47:05Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:47, 19 February 2018
Line 67:		Line 67:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~		There are no figures or tables in the article.

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

Ina: /* Answer 3 */

2018-02-19T21:45:32Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:45, 19 February 2018
Line 53:		Line 53:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''
			The grammar and spelling are good and readable. I could only find one gramma correction in the abstract in the second sentence:
			"Before creating a method description on how to use Vico, there will first be a short introduction on how Vico are supporting the principles of BIM and why this '''Is''' such a strong BIM software." You should write "Is" with lower letter '''is'''.

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

Ina: /* Answer 2 */

2018-02-19T21:38:22Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 19 February 2018
Line 41:		Line 41:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Since the abstract has just been uploaded I can not give a peer feedback on the structure and the logical flow in the article.

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

Ina: /* Answer 1 */

2018-02-19T21:36:01Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 19 February 2018
Line 24:		Line 24:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===

			The abstract gives a general understanding of the topic and what focus point the reader can expect.

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

Ina: /* Answer 1 */

2018-02-19T21:27:17Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, 19 February 2018
Line 24:		Line 24:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	~~''IT would be nice if there was a headline with either summary og absract. It is not clear that the first part is an introduction.~~
	~~But anyways, the first part highligts the focus points, and gives a nice introduction on what the article will include''~~

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

S162284 at 15:48, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T15:48:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 19 February 2018
Line 104:		Line 104:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: David Baldursson==
			===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===
			Sums up the description of what is to come.

			===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===
			As only the abstract has been uploaded it is not possible to review the structure and logic.

			===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===
			Same as answer 2.

			===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

			===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===
			Article topic is practical. It is made clear why it is relevant since it is a tool used in the construction industry.

			===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 can be interesting for practitioner.

			===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===
			Key references are in place. But I can’t give a whole feedback at this time in the article.

Ina: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-19T10:47:55Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:47, 19 February 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.		Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.


			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Ína Salome Sturludóttir'==
			===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===
			''IT would be nice if there was a headline with either summary og absract. It is not clear that the first part is an introduction.
			But anyways, the first part highligts the focus points, and gives a nice introduction on what the article will include''

			===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''