Talk:Project Risk Management and Project Risk Management Processes
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "Josefs says: Hello, I like your idea and topic. But I suggest to chose a focus area, otherwise, your article may end up a bit generic, and not as interesting as it could be be...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Josefs says: Hello, I like your idea and topic. But I suggest to chose a focus area, otherwise, your article may end up a bit generic, and not as interesting as it could be because it is too broad. E.g. the root cause areas, or the process or... | Josefs says: Hello, I like your idea and topic. But I suggest to chose a focus area, otherwise, your article may end up a bit generic, and not as interesting as it could be because it is too broad. E.g. the root cause areas, or the process or... | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | s150905, Review 1: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hi, the article appears complete, with a clear topic and its satisfied all the characteristic of the Wiki-article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Formal aspects | ||
| + | * The part dedicated for the description of the method is clear but i think there is something missing to make the reader more confident with the topic | ||
| + | * It presents a little lack of punctuation and a few spelling errors | ||
| + | * I like the use of the images that help the reader understand better each part | ||
| + | |||
| + | Content | ||
| + | * The article is less than the required words and, while you read it, you feel like there is something missing. | ||
| + | * In my opinion the whole article appear a little generic | ||
| + | * The link between all the parties of the article are not so clearly liked. | ||
| + | * the references used appear to be really focused on the topic | ||
Revision as of 16:24, 22 September 2015
Josefs says: Hello, I like your idea and topic. But I suggest to chose a focus area, otherwise, your article may end up a bit generic, and not as interesting as it could be because it is too broad. E.g. the root cause areas, or the process or...
s150905, Review 1:
Hi, the article appears complete, with a clear topic and its satisfied all the characteristic of the Wiki-article.
Formal aspects
- The part dedicated for the description of the method is clear but i think there is something missing to make the reader more confident with the topic
- It presents a little lack of punctuation and a few spelling errors
- I like the use of the images that help the reader understand better each part
Content
- The article is less than the required words and, while you read it, you feel like there is something missing.
- In my opinion the whole article appear a little generic
- The link between all the parties of the article are not so clearly liked.
- the references used appear to be really focused on the topic
