Talk:Rational Unified Process (RUP)
(Created page with "Anna: I like the topic idea, remember to keep in mind that you need to showcase how this tool is relevant/useful for project/portfolio/program management.") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Anna: I like the topic idea, remember to keep in mind that you need to showcase how this tool is relevant/useful for project/portfolio/program management. | Anna: I like the topic idea, remember to keep in mind that you need to showcase how this tool is relevant/useful for project/portfolio/program management. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Reviewer 1, Damien=== | ||
| + | The article has been accessed the 22/09/2015 at 4 p.m. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | *Overall overview. | ||
| + | The presentation and the overall writing is very clear and clean. The article seems to be well organised and structured. It is also completed, more than 3000 words. Even without any knowledge of the subject, it becomes accessible through the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Formal aspect. | ||
| + | No mistakes noticed, the vocabulary is very precise and the formal aspect of the Wiki seems to me perfectly mastered. The references and the links inside the article are well used in order to explain technical aspect through other pages. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Schemas and photos | ||
| + | They are clearly identified and used in harmony within the text. Maybe more pictures should be introduced in order to break the monotony of the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Links, connections and comprehension. | ||
| + | The article describes the subject in a cascade way, each part is clearly explained in a fall down structure leading to the use in management. So the choice structure makes perfect sense to me. | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, despite the great efficiency in term of explanation, the style can be quite repetitive in terms of reading. It may be corrected by introducing some personal comment, or practical example from times to times and when possible. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Bibliography | ||
| + | The references seem to be very serious one. | ||
| + | |||
| + | However 4 references isn’t enough, and there is no explanation (yet) considering how each reference is relevant regarding the topic. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Conclusion and advices: | ||
| + | From my very own point of view the subject is perfectly explained and presented. However I personally think that it may help to consider some practical examples of the use of the RUP, even if oversimplification is needed. It would make the article more alive in a way (possibility to introduce other picture etc.). The article described the use of RUP in management but doesn’t provide examples. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I understand the subject is complex and need a complete description in order to be fully understandable to the reader. Reducing the description or replacing some parts by concrete examples could still help for the comprehension. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The actual formal presentation is however perfectly acceptable. | ||
Revision as of 19:34, 22 September 2015
Anna: I like the topic idea, remember to keep in mind that you need to showcase how this tool is relevant/useful for project/portfolio/program management.
Reviewer 1, Damien
The article has been accessed the 22/09/2015 at 4 p.m.
- Overall overview.
The presentation and the overall writing is very clear and clean. The article seems to be well organised and structured. It is also completed, more than 3000 words. Even without any knowledge of the subject, it becomes accessible through the article.
- Formal aspect.
No mistakes noticed, the vocabulary is very precise and the formal aspect of the Wiki seems to me perfectly mastered. The references and the links inside the article are well used in order to explain technical aspect through other pages.
- Schemas and photos
They are clearly identified and used in harmony within the text. Maybe more pictures should be introduced in order to break the monotony of the article.
- Links, connections and comprehension.
The article describes the subject in a cascade way, each part is clearly explained in a fall down structure leading to the use in management. So the choice structure makes perfect sense to me.
However, despite the great efficiency in term of explanation, the style can be quite repetitive in terms of reading. It may be corrected by introducing some personal comment, or practical example from times to times and when possible.
- Bibliography
The references seem to be very serious one.
However 4 references isn’t enough, and there is no explanation (yet) considering how each reference is relevant regarding the topic.
- Conclusion and advices:
From my very own point of view the subject is perfectly explained and presented. However I personally think that it may help to consider some practical examples of the use of the RUP, even if oversimplification is needed. It would make the article more alive in a way (possibility to introduce other picture etc.). The article described the use of RUP in management but doesn’t provide examples.
I understand the subject is complex and need a complete description in order to be fully understandable to the reader. Reducing the description or replacing some parts by concrete examples could still help for the comprehension.
The actual formal presentation is however perfectly acceptable.
