Talk:Risk Identification

Reviewer 2: S112910:

1. The topic is strongly related with Project, Program and Porfolio management. That make the article really useful for practitioners that have to deal with this kind of issues.

2. The text is written without spelling and grammatical errors and it's understandable. S112910:

The chosen topic is relevant to project, program and portfolio management. The introduction clearly states what the topic is about leading the reader on to the rest of the article.

The text is very objective and it seems that the author is to facts and theories on the subject. The language in the text is understandable and fluent with no errors on the spelling and grammar.

It guides you through a number of definitions regarding risk and is relevant for interested practitioners.

It would probably be a good idea to make the spacing between the sections in “Definitions and Context” a bit bigger so it does not look like one long text.

The article is missing some references relevant for the text making it difficult to suggest if the article has copy pasted material from other sources.

It seems though that the article has not yet been finished since there are two section at the end of the article with belonging under headings that has not been filled in. They do however seem relevant and interesting. Maybe a section about uncertainty could be relevant for the challenges of risk management, it is only briefly mentioned. The article could also use some figures related to the text to make it more interesting and to emphasize point made in the article. Since the article is not finished my advice is to find a red thread throughout the article to keep it together.

Reviewer 3: s140767

Formal aspects:

• The article's structure is well defined, but could be supported by a few more sub-sections related to the topic.
• The writing style is coherent, with easy-to-understand precise sentences.
• No grammatical errors were noticed.
• The article is obviously not completed yet.
• No figures and references
• It seems that the author has a good understanding of the theory
• It could be nice to complement methods with relevant tools/techniques

Content aspects:

• The article could be interesting to a practitioner
• It is though not easy to evaluate it before the article is finished.
• No comments yet to the length and sufficiency of the sources.
• Remember to add Annotated Bibliography into the Contents.

In general, it is very interesting topic and I believe the author is capable to turn it into a good article. I look forward to read the complete version!