Talk:Risk Register Analysis
(→Abstract Feedback) |
|||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
''Citations in the text is needed.'' | ''Citations in the text is needed.'' | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Harald Hersted''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''fine summary'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''fine structure, it makes sens, but i would Break up the sentences more so there are no longer big chunks that has to be read, but something nice for the eyes to look at. |
| + | Remember reference to your picture '' | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 141: | Line 142: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''it's nice'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 153: | Line 154: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Use references, and get a matrix graph for assess and the tool you describe.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 165: | Line 166: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''very relevant, and i just think if you spent a little more time on layout, it would be perfect, just have conclusion/summary at the end'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 177: | Line 178: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''You have just the amount of needed references, and i think you describe the tool well, just work with the layout'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 191: | Line 192: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Fine'' |
Latest revision as of 22:54, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; missing references
Can you elaborate more the abstract. what is the relevance for Project Managers?
Missing references, please review the Mandatory References in the listed Reading material of the course.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Østerlund
[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
Great abstract and introduction, there is a minor typo in "projectmanager" (project manager), the picture in the abstract is not really doing anything good in the abstract and should probably be moved to the introduction instead of the abstract. The "Project, program or portfolio" should probably lose the "", i dont know if its just me :)
[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
Great flow in the article, you talk about known and unknown risks, maybe you should consider "Rumfeld's unknown knowns" to elaborate a bit more on that subject.
For "Risk identification techniques", could you list the different techniques instead of burring the m in a wall of text
For "Assess", show a graph of a scenario, maybe continue on metro example with the Risk/probability chart, could boost that section a bit
[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 article is well articulated
[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
See ans 1
[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
A small conclusion in each part would give a good idea of why each part is necessary
[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
good article that explains the subject well.
[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
Citations in the text is needed.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Harald Hersted
[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
fine summary
[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
fine structure, it makes sens, but i would Break up the sentences more so there are no longer big chunks that has to be read, but something nice for the eyes to look at. Remember reference to your picture
[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
it's nice
[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
Use references, and get a matrix graph for assess and the tool you describe.
[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
very relevant, and i just think if you spent a little more time on layout, it would be perfect, just have conclusion/summary at the end
[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
You have just the amount of needed references, and i think you describe the tool well, just work with the layout
[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
Fine
