Talk:Program evaluation and review technique (PERT)

From apppm
Revision as of 16:04, 22 September 2015 by S113735 (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.

Personal tools