Talk:Risk Profile in General Contracting
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==s141931, reviewer 1== | ==s141931, reviewer 1== | ||
* Obviously, the article is missing and only the summary is present. It is therefore difficult and pointless to make an evaluation. However, it seems you have an idea about correct 'wiki' formatting, and the topic itself sounds to be relevant and promising, good luck in executing! | * Obviously, the article is missing and only the summary is present. It is therefore difficult and pointless to make an evaluation. However, it seems you have an idea about correct 'wiki' formatting, and the topic itself sounds to be relevant and promising, good luck in executing! | ||
| − | + | ===Answer=== | |
| + | *Thank you for your feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on. But I Kept the structure like you advised. | ||
KB1991, reviewer 2: | KB1991, reviewer 2: | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
* The structure looks fine both regards to the formatting and the red threat. | * The structure looks fine both regards to the formatting and the red threat. | ||
* Would have been nice to read more of the article ☺ | * Would have been nice to read more of the article ☺ | ||
| − | + | ===Answer=== | |
| + | Thank you for nice feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on. | ||
| + | *Removed the part that was written twice. | ||
| + | *Kept the structure. | ||
==Review 2: s150905== | ==Review 2: s150905== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 20: | ||
* The lack of text and imagines make impossible to me to do some actual consideration about the work | * The lack of text and imagines make impossible to me to do some actual consideration about the work | ||
| + | ===Answer=== | ||
| + | Thank you for nice feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on. | ||
| + | *Wrote and put in pictures. | ||
| + | *Kept the structure. | ||
== '''Reviewer 3, 150477''' == | == '''Reviewer 3, 150477''' == | ||
| Line 27: | Line 35: | ||
* Impatient to read your article (i am civil engineering student ;-) | * Impatient to read your article (i am civil engineering student ;-) | ||
* Difficult actually to evaluate your article properly. | * Difficult actually to evaluate your article properly. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer=== | ||
| + | Thank you for nice feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on. | ||
| + | *Have taken a way the part thats written twice | ||
| + | *Kept the structure. | ||
==Reviewer 3 (s141573)== | ==Reviewer 3 (s141573)== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 49: | ||
Looking forward for the final article! | Looking forward for the final article! | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer=== | ||
| + | Thank you for nice feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on. | ||
| + | *Kept the introduction. | ||
| + | *Removed the part that has been written twice | ||
| + | *Kept the structure. | ||
=='''Reviewer 1,s141709'''== | =='''Reviewer 1,s141709'''== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 67: | ||
* The advantages and disadvantages section would go better in the part where you focus on (risk profile in general contracting) | * The advantages and disadvantages section would go better in the part where you focus on (risk profile in general contracting) | ||
* The main part of your article should be more extensive and analytical to help the reader understand more of this method. | * The main part of your article should be more extensive and analytical to help the reader understand more of this method. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer=== | ||
| + | Thank you for nice feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on. | ||
| + | *Kept the introduction. | ||
| + | *I agree that the advantage disadvantages would be better in the (risk profile in general contracting). So I put it in there as well | ||
| + | *Tried to write it more analytical. Hope it work better now :D | ||
Latest revision as of 13:35, 1 October 2015
Contents |
[edit] s141931, reviewer 1
- Obviously, the article is missing and only the summary is present. It is therefore difficult and pointless to make an evaluation. However, it seems you have an idea about correct 'wiki' formatting, and the topic itself sounds to be relevant and promising, good luck in executing!
[edit] Answer
- Thank you for your feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on. But I Kept the structure like you advised.
KB1991, reviewer 2:
- What there is written so far is good.
- Good introduction that describes the topic briefly, but the last part has been written twice.
- The structure looks fine both regards to the formatting and the red threat.
- Would have been nice to read more of the article ☺
[edit] Answer
Thank you for nice feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on.
- Removed the part that was written twice.
- Kept the structure.
[edit] Review 2: s150905
The idea behind this article seem really interesting, but most of the article itself is missing
- The sketched structure appears to be just a draft of the final one, and if the one I see now is the final one I think is not satisfactory for a good work
- The lack of text and imagines make impossible to me to do some actual consideration about the work
[edit] Answer
Thank you for nice feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on.
- Wrote and put in pictures.
- Kept the structure.
[edit] Reviewer 3, 150477
The article has been accessed the 22/09/2015 at 21 p.m.
- The abstract sounds interesting and your parts constructed in a logical way.
- The last part has been written twice, be careful!
- Relevant topic with Risks in Construction.
- Impatient to read your article (i am civil engineering student ;-)
- Difficult actually to evaluate your article properly.
[edit] Answer
Thank you for nice feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on.
- Have taken a way the part thats written twice
- Kept the structure.
[edit] Reviewer 3 (s141573)
The topic is really interesting and it also seems very actual in construction projects.
I like the introduction which I find clear and well structured, keep attention a part is repeated twice!
However, it's hard to give a feedback since most part of the article is missing.
Looking forward for the final article!
[edit] Answer
Thank you for nice feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on.
- Kept the introduction.
- Removed the part that has been written twice
- Kept the structure.
[edit] Reviewer 1,s141709
Formal Aspects
- Good structure
- Probably need for more images to help the reader
Content Aspects
- Nice and understandable flow. I liked the general introduction and then the emphasis on your subject
- No grammar or syntax mistakes
- The advantages and disadvantages section would go better in the part where you focus on (risk profile in general contracting)
- The main part of your article should be more extensive and analytical to help the reader understand more of this method.
[edit] Answer
Thank you for nice feedback. I knew it was not a lot to give feedback on.
- Kept the introduction.
- I agree that the advantage disadvantages would be better in the (risk profile in general contracting). So I put it in there as well
- Tried to write it more analytical. Hope it work better now :D
