Revision as of 20:52, 25 November 2014

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.

Review by Dutten

Dear Keyser Sözer,

I enjoyed reading your wiki article