Talk:Different sides of Project Management Scheduling
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Minor errors e.g. writing "need" when "needed" is required. Do not use first person narrative e.g. "we"
Description of the tool/theory/concept Okay, but go back to basics. Define what scheduling is and make references to appropriate standards. The abstract needs expansion
Purpose explanation Good, but can be improved:
- Consider explaining the structure and content of the article to align reader expectations
- What will the reader get out of reading this?
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Consider the following:
- Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
- Try linking to a knowledge area e.g. "Project Time Management"
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Aksel WAtson
Question 1 • TEXT
Quality of the summary:
The summary has a nice length – it gets to the key point quickly. However, there are many grammar and spelling mistakes that should be corrected. I believe it will be a valuable contribution for anybody wanting to learn more about project management.
Question 2 • TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Only the abstract has been writing, therefore it is not possible to comment on the flow of the article. I suggest, that a table of content is created to ensure that each subject is relevant within project scheduling
Question 3 • TEXT
Grammar and style:
The style seems fine, however I can only see the abstract. As mentioned in Q1, there are a lot of grammatical error, that should be corrected. I suggest, making sentences shorter and more precise, and only write what is necessary instead of listing up, so many items.
Question 4 • TEXT
'Figures and tables:
There are no figure or table in the article.
Question 5 • TEXT
'Interest and relevance:
The article is very relevant, since project scheduling is used in any company and any industry. I feel that this is portrayed nicely in the abstract, however its hard to say before more text has been writing.
Question 6 • TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Question 7 • TEXT
There is only one source, however this source is both relevant and denoted correctly in the text and in the end