Talk:What is SWOT - Revision history

Kristbk at 16:04, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T16:04:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 25 February 2019
Line 116:		Line 116:

	Also you write 'Volume 2, by Ryan Watkin and Doug Leigh (p.131)' after a reference in your text. This is too much info to include in the text itself, and should rather be in the reference list at the end of the article. Rather put the reference after “Handbook of Improving performance in the Workplace”.		Also you write 'Volume 2, by Ryan Watkin and Doug Leigh (p.131)' after a reference in your text. This is too much info to include in the text itself, and should rather be in the reference list at the end of the article. Rather put the reference after “Handbook of Improving performance in the Workplace”.

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Kristine Kaulberg''==
			===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===
			Good introduction of the article. I think it would be a good idea to revisit the abstract again, when you have finished the article completely – maybe to put in some of the learnings of reading 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===
			There is a good structure and flow throughout the article and the order of the sections is straight forward.

			===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===
			There are some sentences with incorrect phrasing and some words that should be deleted. Also try to divide some of the sentences into two, which will again make the article more straight forward and readable. Be aware of and try not to use spoken language. However, it doesn’t interfere with the meaning of the article it only makes it a tiny bit difficult to read. Try using # when listening numbered bullet points.

			===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===
			Very illustrative figure of SWOT – good job.

			===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===
			The article itself states that the tool is very relevant when used right, and also states different situations where the tool can be used. I think it is made clear how it is relevant. I would say that it is mostly of practical relevance.

			===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===
			I think it is of most interest for a practitioner to read since it is very tool based described. It speaks directly to the reader in most sections and is written like a guide. To make it more academic try referring to studies or show specific cases or examples of the use of SWOT.

			===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 references haven’t yet been “coded” in the article. Still missing a summary of 3-5 source in annotated bibliography. Could also be a good idea to make a reference list different from the annotated bibliography at the end. The references should be listed as author, year, title etc. not as a web-address. I also think you need to use at least one of the listed standards as a reference.

Keegan: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sarantis Pavlidis */

2019-02-24T17:19:20Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sarantis Pavlidis

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 24 February 2019
Line 22:		Line 22:


	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Sarantis Pavlidis~~''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Keegan van Kooten''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''
Line 31:		Line 31:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		Your abstract is really good, until the first reference '(1)'. I don't think you should have references in your abstract, as an abstract should be what the article will be about, and should explain terms or ideas. I also think the everything about where the framework came from (Kurt Lewis) should be under a different section. Possible under 'A brief history of SWOT' as the abstract should be about the whole article, and again, shouldn't have explanations. Maybe also add a sentence or two about what angle your article will try tackle within the field of a SWOT analysis.


	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 47:		Line 48:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here''~~		You have clearly done your research, and know a lot about the topic. Try, when you're writing, to make your sentences shorter, this will help the argumentation of each section. I think there is a good flow throughout the article, and the different sections fit well together. You don't seem to have any major contradictions, and all ideas are developed naturally (sometimes, a little too well. Try shorten some of the explanations down - it would help make your article more to the point.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 59:		Line 60:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		There are a few grammatical errors, and wrong use of the first and second person:

			'Let us look'.. -> try write this as 'these factors are...'
			'Now that we know what SWOT' -> this is very personal, and you should rather use more scientific language such as: '...knowing that a SWOT is... then...'

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 71:		Line 75:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Your SWOT figure is very clear, good choice. It really does help understanding the tool. The only thing now is to add the reference to your text (which I know you are aware that you need to do).

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 83:		Line 87:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here''~~		The article is clear which helps make it interesting. It would be very helpful for people who need to use the tool so in that way it is academically relevant. I do think you need to add a sentence or section about what your specific angle is for the use of/understanding of a SWOT (something more like you section 'Critical success factors').

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 95:		Line 99:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The article is very interesting yes, and it is clear you are interested in the topic. If you can expand on the Critical success factors, that would help your article add more value to other people (I think its a very interesting section, where a lot of the value from your article comes from).

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 109:		Line 113:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here''~~		You have references, but you have written them yourself. You should try use the wiki citing of <ref> ..... </ref> (try look it up on the wiki help) - using this feature will add all your references at the end of your article automatically. Otherwise, you use references well in your article.

			Also you write 'Volume 2, by Ryan Watkin and Doug Leigh (p.131)' after a reference in your text. This is too much info to include in the text itself, and should rather be in the reference list at the end of the article. Rather put the reference after “Handbook of Improving performance in the Workplace”.

Keegan: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-24T17:00:20Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 24 February 2019
Line 19:		Line 19:
	\|'''Other'''\|\|		\|'''Other'''\|\|
	\|}		\|}



			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Sarantis Pavlidis''==
			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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''

Ebkh: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Language'''|| Good - few misspellings and avoid writing "We" |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''||..."

2019-02-19T14:04:02Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Language'''|| Good - few misspellings and avoid writing "We" |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''||..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Good
|-
|'''Language'''|| Good - few misspellings and avoid writing "We"
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good
|-
|'''Purpose explanation'''|| I can see that you relate SWOT to project management so remember to mention it in the abstract too
|-
|'''Title of the Wiki'''|| Remember the question mark -> What is SWOT? but you could also call it The use of SWOT in Project Management if thats your focus
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
If you are in doubt about how to make them in the wiki then have a look at the "Help" function in the side of the page or look at previous years articles. If you click "edit" in one of the old ones you can see how it is done but please do not change anything.
|-
|'''Other'''||
|}