Talk:Management of risk
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "Reviewer 1: Lea *You are following the Method-article type. The general outline of your article gives good guidance to the topic. I am missing a bit of the application or impl...") |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | Reviewer 2: Jacob | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Before the final deliverance, I would suggest a thorough spell- and gramma check, as well as revamping where you set full stops, since there are many unnecessarry and wrongfully placed full stops, which severely limits the readability (Example: ""chance or probability of loss". Meaning that only negative results could" - the full stop should in this case have been a comma, if anything) | ||
| + | *Secondly, parts of a website is called sections, not chapters, for the unwritten reference you have. You also have a few other references that haven't been created yet - I would suggest removing the references and possibly just giving a short description of what you're referring to instead (For instance, COntingency in the "For Projects" section). | ||
| + | *Next, you're not following the structure of the article as supposed - I'm not sure how much of a problem that is, though, since the alternative structure you have used make sense to me, and also includes many of the requirements from the description (i.e. Introduction, limitations, Big idea (although renamed)). | ||
| + | *I would also suggest a few more figures, for instance of Fault Trees, or some of the other methods, just to give a different visual effect. | ||
| + | *Finally, I would elaborate on the subjects of the General methodology, the Important principles and the benefits, making them more than just a set of bullet points. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Response from author: | ||
| + | Thank you for providing me with very valid points! | ||
| + | * I change the subject of my article just before the deadline of version 1. The grammar and spelling was therefore very bad as it was written in a rush. I hope it is OK now. | ||
| + | * Noted and changed | ||
| + | * Changed the structure | ||
| + | * Was not finished at the time of version 1, has much more text now | ||
| + | |||
Reviewer 1: Lea | Reviewer 1: Lea | ||
*You are following the Method-article type. The general outline of your article gives good guidance to the topic. I am missing a bit of the application or implementation part. | *You are following the Method-article type. The general outline of your article gives good guidance to the topic. I am missing a bit of the application or implementation part. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 24: | ||
*Annotated bibliography has not yet been added. | *Annotated bibliography has not yet been added. | ||
*Some words are highlighted in the text but they are just linked to a blank page. Maybe you wanted to link the text to other wiki articles? | *Some words are highlighted in the text but they are just linked to a blank page. Maybe you wanted to link the text to other wiki articles? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Response from author: | ||
| + | Thank you for pointing out what had to be changed! | ||
| + | * the structure has changed from version 1, hope the application and implementation is clear now | ||
| + | * Changed this part | ||
| + | * Found a better image | ||
| + | * Correct! | ||
| + | * Found relevant references as most of the article was changed after version 1 | ||
| + | * Links to other wiki articles added | ||
| + | |||
| + | Reviewer 3: s141569 | ||
| + | |||
| + | The topic of the article is really interesting. It is obvious that there are lots of modifications that they need to be done because the article is under construction. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would suggest (maybe the author has the same thoughts, I do not know) that it would be very engaging the usage of figures and a video for this kind of topic. | ||
| + | *Some spelling errors found and some other syntax. Probably they are due to momentum because they do not seem to be so significant. | ||
| + | *Figures are not illustrated but I hope that there is going to be few of them | ||
| + | * The article is properly formatted under the typical wiki-article structure. It would be awesome to add some hyper-links leading to other wiki-pages related to the topic. | ||
| + | *I think that the final version is going to be very interesting for a practitioner | ||
| + | *The article is highly related to a project, program or portfolio management topic | ||
| + | *The length at this time is at the 1/3 of what it should be, however I suppose that at the finishing it is going to be at the appropriate standards. | ||
| + | *The structure seems to follow a logical flow among the chapters of the article. | ||
| + | *The starting summary is appropriate for the article until now | ||
| + | *There are three references, but I consider that there are going to be some more until the finish. | ||
| + | *There are no links to other relevant pages in appp wiki yet. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Response from author: | ||
| + | Thank you very much for a good review! | ||
| + | * fixed spelling | ||
| + | * added figures | ||
| + | * added links to wiki pages | ||
| + | * thank you! | ||
| + | * added references | ||
Latest revision as of 23:03, 28 September 2015
Reviewer 2: Jacob
- Before the final deliverance, I would suggest a thorough spell- and gramma check, as well as revamping where you set full stops, since there are many unnecessarry and wrongfully placed full stops, which severely limits the readability (Example: ""chance or probability of loss". Meaning that only negative results could" - the full stop should in this case have been a comma, if anything)
- Secondly, parts of a website is called sections, not chapters, for the unwritten reference you have. You also have a few other references that haven't been created yet - I would suggest removing the references and possibly just giving a short description of what you're referring to instead (For instance, COntingency in the "For Projects" section).
- Next, you're not following the structure of the article as supposed - I'm not sure how much of a problem that is, though, since the alternative structure you have used make sense to me, and also includes many of the requirements from the description (i.e. Introduction, limitations, Big idea (although renamed)).
- I would also suggest a few more figures, for instance of Fault Trees, or some of the other methods, just to give a different visual effect.
- Finally, I would elaborate on the subjects of the General methodology, the Important principles and the benefits, making them more than just a set of bullet points.
Response from author: Thank you for providing me with very valid points!
- I change the subject of my article just before the deadline of version 1. The grammar and spelling was therefore very bad as it was written in a rush. I hope it is OK now.
- Noted and changed
- Changed the structure
- Was not finished at the time of version 1, has much more text now
Reviewer 1: Lea
- You are following the Method-article type. The general outline of your article gives good guidance to the topic. I am missing a bit of the application or implementation part.
- Structure: There is a good structure but the “abstract” in the beginning and the first heading introduction are not very clear. A short summary of the article would be good. Also an abstract should not exceed 200 words.
- Introduction. It is said that one ISO guide complements the other. Is this information relevant? Maybe an explanation of why you start out with the ISO guide.
- There are a few spelling mistakes, but your sentences are short and can be easily read.
- The figure in the beginning cannot be read. Maybe change the pixel size. If you do not have more complimentary figures, I think it is fine. Otherwise one or two more pictures would give a better overview.
- The subject is interesting and definitely corresponds to the course subject. Since there are still some Headings without text, I guess you are not done writing yet. For the further progress I would suggest to try and get more “grip” on the topic. Narrow it down in the end to maybe one tool.
- Sources are unfortunately a little sparse. I would suggest to get more information from relevant articles or books.
- Annotated bibliography has not yet been added.
- Some words are highlighted in the text but they are just linked to a blank page. Maybe you wanted to link the text to other wiki articles?
Response from author: Thank you for pointing out what had to be changed!
- the structure has changed from version 1, hope the application and implementation is clear now
- Changed this part
- Found a better image
- Correct!
- Found relevant references as most of the article was changed after version 1
- Links to other wiki articles added
Reviewer 3: s141569
The topic of the article is really interesting. It is obvious that there are lots of modifications that they need to be done because the article is under construction.
I would suggest (maybe the author has the same thoughts, I do not know) that it would be very engaging the usage of figures and a video for this kind of topic.
- Some spelling errors found and some other syntax. Probably they are due to momentum because they do not seem to be so significant.
- Figures are not illustrated but I hope that there is going to be few of them
- The article is properly formatted under the typical wiki-article structure. It would be awesome to add some hyper-links leading to other wiki-pages related to the topic.
- I think that the final version is going to be very interesting for a practitioner
- The article is highly related to a project, program or portfolio management topic
- The length at this time is at the 1/3 of what it should be, however I suppose that at the finishing it is going to be at the appropriate standards.
- The structure seems to follow a logical flow among the chapters of the article.
- The starting summary is appropriate for the article until now
- There are three references, but I consider that there are going to be some more until the finish.
- There are no links to other relevant pages in appp wiki yet.
Response from author: Thank you very much for a good review!
- fixed spelling
- added figures
- added links to wiki pages
- thank you!
- added references
