Talk:Fault tree analysis
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Anna: Very nice, I like that you have chosen Risk Management as the overall topic but narrowed your scope to only talk about a specific tool. Nice to see that you have already thought about the structure also. | Anna: Very nice, I like that you have chosen Risk Management as the overall topic but narrowed your scope to only talk about a specific tool. Nice to see that you have already thought about the structure also. | ||
| − | <u>Gaetangarnotel - Reviewer n°3</u>< | + | <u>Gaetangarnotel - Reviewer n°3</u> <br/> |
| − | Hello :)< | + | Hello :) <br/> |
First of all, I want to say that I think that your article is quite good, I liked it when I read it, and in overall, it has been clear to me. Yet, I have some recommendations that you could follow if you think that they are relevant: | First of all, I want to say that I think that your article is quite good, I liked it when I read it, and in overall, it has been clear to me. Yet, I have some recommendations that you could follow if you think that they are relevant: | ||
* In your introduction, I would not talk about the limitations of the method yet. As I consider it, the introduction aims to tease people, give the will to read more. In fact, it is in the conclusion that I would summarize the all article and write one or two sentences on the limitations. By the way, you should definitely write a conclusion. This part is absolutely fundamental. | * In your introduction, I would not talk about the limitations of the method yet. As I consider it, the introduction aims to tease people, give the will to read more. In fact, it is in the conclusion that I would summarize the all article and write one or two sentences on the limitations. By the way, you should definitely write a conclusion. This part is absolutely fundamental. | ||
| − | * In the "concept and purpose", we cannot read very clearly the figure. You have many solutions to fix the problem. First, try to summarize a little and get rid of some parts. Second, change the colors to create a better contrast. Third, put a little window instead of | + | * In the "concept and purpose", we cannot read very clearly the figure. You have many solutions to fix the problem. First, try to summarize a little and get rid of some parts. Second, change the colors to create a better contrast. Third, put a little window instead of a big one and ask the reader to go to the picture's page so we have it in its real size. Moreover, if you say "figure 1 shows", you should actually put "Figure 1:..." under the picture. |
| + | * I would say that the "history" part should be more elaborated. I have the feeling that such a method comes from a long time so you may find more information to share on that point. But I may be wrong. | ||
| + | * All in all, I would say that your big parts would benefit from having a small introduction to explain the main lines you will tell about. | ||
| + | As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track. | ||
Revision as of 14:24, 22 September 2015
Anna: Very nice, I like that you have chosen Risk Management as the overall topic but narrowed your scope to only talk about a specific tool. Nice to see that you have already thought about the structure also.
Gaetangarnotel - Reviewer n°3
Hello :)
First of all, I want to say that I think that your article is quite good, I liked it when I read it, and in overall, it has been clear to me. Yet, I have some recommendations that you could follow if you think that they are relevant:
- In your introduction, I would not talk about the limitations of the method yet. As I consider it, the introduction aims to tease people, give the will to read more. In fact, it is in the conclusion that I would summarize the all article and write one or two sentences on the limitations. By the way, you should definitely write a conclusion. This part is absolutely fundamental.
- In the "concept and purpose", we cannot read very clearly the figure. You have many solutions to fix the problem. First, try to summarize a little and get rid of some parts. Second, change the colors to create a better contrast. Third, put a little window instead of a big one and ask the reader to go to the picture's page so we have it in its real size. Moreover, if you say "figure 1 shows", you should actually put "Figure 1:..." under the picture.
- I would say that the "history" part should be more elaborated. I have the feeling that such a method comes from a long time so you may find more information to share on that point. But I may be wrong.
- All in all, I would say that your big parts would benefit from having a small introduction to explain the main lines you will tell about.
As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track.
