Revision as of 20:24, 25 November 2014

Hermaeus Mora

The language is clear and easily understandable. A couple commas may be missing and in the first section paragraph 3 "The risk register cannot only be used as a motivating risk management tool" could be formulated as "The risk register can be used not only as a motivating risk management tool;" apart from that it's good.
There's just one figure, more could be added as the article grows.
References to links are nicely made, the article uses a book, this should be referenced in the traditional wiki way <references />.
A category from APPPM is added which is nice, maybe add a few more e.g. Uncertainty, Risk etc.
Layout seems to be ok for now, abstract, introduction to the tool and its applications and an introduction to how the tool should be used.

The article is obviously not finished yet (778 words as of the writing of this review) So the review can only regard the initial part.
The article clearly falls under the 'in-depth description of a particular method' category. It relates deeply to project management and, judging by the links attached, is based on fresh data.
The abstract is good in length and shows a fair purpose behind the tool. It could however include a few sentences about the tool itself, short summary, instead of a rather strong opinion that it's "THE optimum [...] tool within project management".
As mentioned before any book references should be added along with additional categories in APPPM wiki for further reading.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *The abstract is good in length and shows a fair purpose behind the tool. It could however include a few sentences about the tool itself, short summary, instead of a rather strong opinion that it's "THE optimum [...] tool within project management".
 *As mentioned before any book references should be added along with additional categories in APPPM wiki for further reading.
-'''Structure'''
-* The overall feeling of the article is very positive. The language is precise and easy to understand. However, there are a few spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes which will surely disappear in the editing process.
-* At the moment there is only one figure in the article. Using more figures will definitely have a positive effect on the visualization as the article gets further along.
-* Good use of references.
-* The layout seems to be fine for now.
-'''Content'''
-* The preliminary content seems to be very relevant to the course. The paragraphs are nicely written but could profit from a few summarizing sentences.
-* The fresh data is a nice touch.
-* The abstract has a suitable length for this kind of article. Definitely a plus.