Talk:Risk responses
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Justsen') |
(→Answer 5) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The first section is very clear and sums up the focus points of the article. I would though suggest making a headline for the first part, either as "Abstract" or "Introduction", to make clear at the beginning which it is. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Otherwise, I have only two suggestion about improvements in the first section. | ||
| + | First, add a clear definition of what a risk is, you mention in the first sentence what uncertainty is but not what a risk is. | ||
| + | Second, I would consider splitting this sentence into two sentences: "This article will give an overview of the planning, strategies and tools for the risk response process, as the project benefits of addressing risks by their priority, inserting resources and activities into the budget, schedule and project management plan as needed." | ||
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 117: | Line 123: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | The text in the article is coherent and there is a logical flow. The sections lead up to each other and are free of contradictions. I can see that some sections are not completed, but a couple of improvements can be considered. I would change the name of the "Identify risks" section to "Identification of risks". In my opinion, the Risk Register section is to short to be separated section, I would suggest to combine it with the "Identify risks" (Identification of risks) section. I would suggest explaining the examples of the quantitive methods in at least one sentence to define the difference between them and so the readers can have an idea about which method fits their project best. Finally, you should add a conclusion at the end. | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 129: | Line 136: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | The grammar and spelling are good and readable. I could only find one gramma correction in the "Assessment" section in the "Qualitative risk assessment", you mention “the Probability” with a capital letter, should it not just be with a lowercase letter? | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 141: | Line 149: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | Right now there are no figures, but there is one table. The table gives a good overview of the key points for risk response. I would suggest adding two figures to the article, figures of the inputs and the outputs of the qualitative risk assessment and the quantitative risk assessment, to get better vision over what is needed to make these assessments. | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 153: | Line 161: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | The article gives a great practical guideline to a reader who does not know this theory and there is an academic relevance, but perhaps it could be more academically relevant if a broader material of references is used. The risk respond is very relevant subject but I think it could be made more clear at the beginning of the article why it is relevant. | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 165: | Line 174: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | The article gives a good overview of the planning, strategies and tools for the risk response process, but there are a lot of websites online that refer to the risk response process. I would recommend giving an example of risk in a specific project and how it is processed. This example could provide a better overview of a risk respond and how it is controlled. | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 179: | Line 189: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | + | The references give valid information in the article, but you should find more sources and summarize the key references at the end of the article. | |
Latest revision as of 22:22, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Justsen'
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
IT would be nice if there was a headline with either summary og absract. It is not clear that the first part is an introduction. But anyways, the first part highligts the focus points, and gives a nice introduction on what the article will include
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
Is there a logical flow to the article?
Does one part build upon the other?
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
nice and logical flow through the article, makes a nice structure, which makes it easy to read
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
im an not an english expert in gramma and spelling.
But nice language with a small amout of fill words. makes it easy to read
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear?
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
No figures. but nice table. the table is easy to read and gives a good summary of the key point and what that can be done with eaither threats or opportunities.
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
The article is academic relevance as it uses a little bit of theory within risk assesment and analysis.
yes the introduction, gives a nice action on why it is relevvant. but in the end you should also descripe why you article are relevant and how it can be used furhter.
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
The article is most interesting for at acedemic as it only uses theory. it would be nice with some type of example or case, this will make it more relevant for a practitioner.
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
Good use of references. but a lack of briefly summarize, this will make it easy for the reader to use reference to furhter study.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Ína Salome Sturludóttir'
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
The first section is very clear and sums up the focus points of the article. I would though suggest making a headline for the first part, either as "Abstract" or "Introduction", to make clear at the beginning which it is.
Otherwise, I have only two suggestion about improvements in the first section. First, add a clear definition of what a risk is, you mention in the first sentence what uncertainty is but not what a risk is. Second, I would consider splitting this sentence into two sentences: "This article will give an overview of the planning, strategies and tools for the risk response process, as the project benefits of addressing risks by their priority, inserting resources and activities into the budget, schedule and project management plan as needed."
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
Is there a logical flow to the article?
Does one part build upon the other?
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
The text in the article is coherent and there is a logical flow. The sections lead up to each other and are free of contradictions. I can see that some sections are not completed, but a couple of improvements can be considered. I would change the name of the "Identify risks" section to "Identification of risks". In my opinion, the Risk Register section is to short to be separated section, I would suggest to combine it with the "Identify risks" (Identification of risks) section. I would suggest explaining the examples of the quantitive methods in at least one sentence to define the difference between them and so the readers can have an idea about which method fits their project best. Finally, you should add a conclusion at the end.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
The grammar and spelling are good and readable. I could only find one gramma correction in the "Assessment" section in the "Qualitative risk assessment", you mention “the Probability” with a capital letter, should it not just be with a lowercase letter?
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear?
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
Right now there are no figures, but there is one table. The table gives a good overview of the key points for risk response. I would suggest adding two figures to the article, figures of the inputs and the outputs of the qualitative risk assessment and the quantitative risk assessment, to get better vision over what is needed to make these assessments.
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
The article gives a great practical guideline to a reader who does not know this theory and there is an academic relevance, but perhaps it could be more academically relevant if a broader material of references is used. The risk respond is very relevant subject but I think it could be made more clear at the beginning of the article why it is relevant.
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
The article gives a good overview of the planning, strategies and tools for the risk response process, but there are a lot of websites online that refer to the risk response process. I would recommend giving an example of risk in a specific project and how it is processed. This example could provide a better overview of a risk respond and how it is controlled.
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
The references give valid information in the article, but you should find more sources and summarize the key references at the end of the article.
