Talk:Risk register
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→Review - WinWin: new section) |
(→Content) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*As mentioned before any book references should be added along with additional categories in APPPM wiki for further reading. | *As mentioned before any book references should be added along with additional categories in APPPM wiki for further reading. | ||
| − | + | = Review - WinWin = | |
Revision as of 20:26, 25 November 2014
Contents |
Hermaeus Mora
Structure
- 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.
Content
- 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.
Review - WinWin
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.
