Peer Review Comment Template

Student’s name: Jordan Philip

Title/topic: Investigation into the scope and performance of sustainable urban drainage
systems in regulating surface run-off and contamination within Scotland
Your name: Santiago Poveda

Project Scope and Background (min of 3 sentences):

It was really good because in the first place the author kept it short, 3 o 4 paragraphs. It
gave a concise summary what the project was about. The first paragraph gave a good
background introduction and forced the reader to continue to find out what comes next.
It was also a bit weak in the last paragraph and it could have been improved by focusing a
bit more on the project itself adding more details. The reference had a good quality, very
appropriate to the topic itself and provided a good piece of information for the reader.

Aims and Objectives (min of 3 sentences):

It was good because the author kept it short and concise. The main objectives were very
clear, simple, actionable and measurable and they seemed to be reasonable and able to
be completed within the specific period the author had for it.
It was a bit weak since the author missed the part to explain the reader the reason to carry
out the project.

Proposed Methodology (min of 3 sentences):

It was good because the author kept this section short and concise. It was also good
because the author provided short explanation how the research methodology created an
impact in the field of study and consequently and impact to the reader too. It was a bit
weak since the author did not use any reference when appropriate and that will help the
author to show the reader the deeply the author understood the topic on which he was
working.

References (min of 1 sentence):

It was good because the sources are cited correctly by giving the name of the author, date
of publication when needed and according the Harvard style referencing.

Work Breakdown Structure and Risk Register (min of 3 sentences):

The work breakdown structured was good because it was well structured and it was well
planned according to the author aims and objectives. It could have been improved by
adding more steps in detail and how was the project process had been developed until the
objectives were reached.
The risk register section was quite clear as it covered the three main risks every project
have. It could have been improved by adding other risks that involved the project itself
such as tasks within the project that were difficult to achieve due to different reasons.
Project Timeline (min of 3 sentences):
No attempted

Overall feedback

Overall the draft proposal presented had a high quality and met the requirements in most
of the sections attempted. It was easy to follow and easy to understand even if you did not
know anything about the topic.  Aims and objectives section probably needed to add the
reason to carry out this project and include the main aim for it. there was also a need to
put more effort including more risks affecting directly to the project itself and the inclusion
of other steps within the work breakdown structure section.