View source for Talk:Rational Unified Process (RUP)

Anna: I like the topic idea, remember to keep in mind that you need to showcase how this tool is relevant/useful for project/portfolio/program management.


===Reviewer 1, Damien===
The article has been accessed the 22/09/2015 at 4 p.m.

*Overall overview. 
The presentation and the overall writing is very clear and clean. The article seems to be well organised and structured. It is also completed, more than 3000 words. Even without any knowledge of the subject, it becomes accessible through the article. 

*Formal aspect.
No mistakes noticed, the vocabulary is very precise and the formal aspect of the Wiki seems to me perfectly mastered. The references and the links inside the article are well used in order to explain technical aspect through other pages. 

*Schemas and photos
They are clearly identified and used in harmony within the text. Maybe more pictures should be introduced in order to break the monotony of the article. 

*Links, connections and comprehension. 
The article describes the subject in a cascade way, each part is clearly explained in a fall down structure leading to the use in management. So the choice structure makes perfect sense to me.
 
However, despite the great efficiency in term of explanation, the style can be quite repetitive in terms of reading. It may be corrected by introducing some personal comment, or practical example from times to times and when possible.

*Bibliography 
The references seem to be very serious one.
 
However 4 references isn’t enough, and there is no explanation (yet) considering how each reference is relevant regarding the topic. 

*Conclusion and advices: 
From my very own point of view the subject is perfectly explained and presented. However I personally think that it may help to consider some practical examples of the use of the RUP, even if oversimplification is needed. It would make the article more alive in a way (possibility to introduce other picture etc.). The article described the use of RUP in management but doesn’t provide examples.

I understand the subject is complex and need a complete description in order to be fully understandable to the reader. Reducing the description or replacing some parts by concrete examples could still help for the comprehension. 

The actual formal presentation is however perfectly acceptable.

'''Answer to reviewer 1'''
Dear Damien, 
thank you very much for all your points. To me the most important ones were the missing references and some concrete examples of using the method. As far as the references are concerned, they have all been added. As you said the article was pretty extensive (a bit more than 3000 words) and i could not delete any of the parts to add a practical example (by doing so, i would have to delete important aspects of the method and it wouldn't make sense to the final reader). However, i added a '''Further Reading''' section where the reader can find such an example for better comprehension of the method.


‘’’Ana – Reviewer 2’’’
*I found this an interesting topic I did not know nothing about before. I really liked the start, it is good to have a definition when you are about to discover a new subject.

As I was blind in this matter it was a bit hard for me to read, there is “a lot of meat in that bone” but I have to admit that it is well structured event though it is quite long for the amount of information, it goes into much detail. I find useful the use of bullet points.

*Figures are useful and well use, they are referred in the text what make easier to follow the explanation. 
The conclusion is brief and sums up the content of the article.

*I would have like to have links in the reference list to consult in case of doubts.

*I would have like to have examples of use in this article to make it easier to follow, I personally learn better with a “background story”, it seems more coherent for me in a complex topic like this.

*To conclude my feedback I have to say that this article looks accurate and good for expand knowledge.

'''Answer to reviewer 1'''
Dear Ana, thank you very much for your points. I added all the missing references as you suggested and i added a '''Further Reading''' section, where you can read a practical example of the method.

'''Reviewer username: s103128 (Martin Larsen) – Reviewer 1'''

Hello Author of Rational Unified Process! Wauv, what an outstanding article! I think you did an awesome job on this one.

-The introduction starts the article very well. In just a few lines, the origin and use of the method is covered and explained, even for someone, like me, with very little knowledge on the subject

-The subject seems very relevant, and the article follows the structure of a “method” article very well

-The process paragraph gives a good overview of what seems to be a complex process. I like the way it is done with bullet points, it gives a strong sense of linearity in the article. 

-The use of figures support the text and arguments. Especially the figure describing the phases really improves understanding.

-Your language is correct, highly scientific and with very, very few errors. Awesome!

-Your link to project management is good, but maybe it should be emphasized a bit earlier, that this is a tool that can be used in the project/programme/portfoilio context? A line or two in the introduction would be sufficient. 

-Remember to make the annotated bibliography for your sources, and I will recommend the use of the wiki reference system instead of a sub-section

-Your article has A LOT of headlines. Usually, I would consider many headlines with only limited amount of supporting text a bad thing. But I think, the subject and wiki format considered, you make it work. Just be careful that your points are not lost by having only a limited amount of “flowing” text. For instance the “deployment” sub-paragraph has very little supportive text, apart from the bullet points. It could be a bit more elaborated in text what is going on. 

I must admit that I don’t have much else to critize you for, as I think you have written an excellent article. Good luck with your article!

/Martin

'''Answer to reviewer 3'''
Dear Martin, thank you very much for all your points! I added all the missing references and i also used the wiki reference system as you suggested. I agree that some parts may not contain a lot of supportive text, however i believe that these parts did not need any further explanation and the article was pretty extensive already(a bit more than 3000 words).