Talk:Program evaluation and review technique (PERT)

From apppm
Revision as of 18:47, 22 September 2015 by MistaJacob (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Anna: Very nice topic! It seems that you have a good grasp on the structure of the article and the theme fits the first article type: method :).

Reviewer 2 – User: s113735 Feedback: Program evaluation and review technique (PERT) Formal Aspects:

  • The article clearly follows the “method or tool” structure required. Super!
  • The grammar and spelling in the article is at a decently high level. The sentences are short and concise, which makes it a pleasurably read with clear and easy to understand points.
  • Your choice of figures are good and in line with the points, you are trying to make. Some figures could, however, be explained a little better (for instance the PERT box).
  • Figures are missing references.
  • The article has a bibliography, but is otherwise free of references and links. This makes it really hardto check the validity of your points. The article will have to be referenced.

Content Aspects:

  • The article is clearly within the scope as it relates directly to a “Program” tool/method.
  • The length of the article seems fair, but a few headings and sub-sections could easily be elaborated a bit. (For instance the “process” section: What are the benefits/drawbacks from using the tools you present? Are the tools prescribed or optional? Etc… You explain the overall applications and limitations for the PERT model, but not for the individual tools).
  • The “critical path” in Project Management to my knowledge is not “the path that includes the most time consuming tasks” but is instead “the sequence of activities which add up to the longest overall duration”. You clearly show in your article that you know this while ALSO showing you know how to calculate the critical path.

With a little bit sharper terminology and definitions, it would increase the understanding a lot.

  • When making a statement like: “But soon, project managers and companies have found that it is too ineffective and error-prone to use it, causing lots of failures.” This definitely need to be referenced.

Other than in a few cases the article is generally void of personal/unverifiable opinions, which is good.

  • So far, the article doesn’t link to any other articles on the Wiki. I understand that it might be tough to find something directly related to this specific tool amongst the rather limited topics on the Wiki. I suggest trying to find some broad topics or even Categories to link to when writing. For instance, you might link to “human behaviour” (a category on the Wiki) when writing about the “agreement dimension” in the Stacey Matrix.

Overall Conclusion: The article is written at a high level and is easy to read and understand. Some points could however be elaborated a bit and the article needs to be referenced according to Wiki standards using the <ref> lastname, firstname (year) [ “linkname”] </ref> standard.

MistaJacob, reviewer 3

The feedback will be given in the form:

  • My feedback
    • My feedback


  • ’’Copy of your text’’
    • My feedback


  • The general formatting is almost as it’s supposed to be. The pictures though lack the numbering and the references in the text, and you shift with using ‘thumbs’ and placing it in the middle. Consistency can be recommended for a better visual overview.
  • The language is clear and easy to read, only with small number of places where i found typo’s, like in “Limitation” where you start and end a sentence with: Therefore
    • I will not comment these since they will be obvious to you when you read through your article for corrections.

  • I found the article relevant, with a good red thread through it.
  • The step by step approach worked as it should. That being said, the reader’s understanding could have been improved if you included a practical example you carried out through all steps
    • As you promised in the introduction :)
  • in the section “Key Concepts”, the sequence of the bullet point list should be the same as the sequence in which they are explained, or vice versa.
  • ’’The process of making a PERT analysis can be divided into 4 steps:’’
    • you have written 5 bullet points below
  • ‘’Preparation of a list of all the tasks that will be involved in a given project’’
    • I would stick to using ‘activities’ and not ‘tasks’ as you write here.
    • There are other places (maybe only one) where you use task as well
  • I would suggest that you also explain the term ‘float’, since it appears in your figure
  • ‘’In this step we estimate the amount of time that can be taken by each activity.’’
    • You normally don’t use ‘we’
  • ‘’A project cannot be completed as long as his longest component isn't finished.’’
    • Don’t know whether you would be able to argue your way out of defining a project as being ‘male’ ;)
  • ‘’Gantt charts are used to display the timing of activities aGantt charts are used to display the timing of activities and progress of the project.’’
    • Double up
  • Since you describe the other tool in the comparison very briefly, I would suggest to include links to their respective articles (if they exists)
Personal tools