Talk:Risk identification methods
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | OK but could be a bit more clear |
| Purpose explanation | Good but you switch from focusing on risks in projects to focus on programs afterwards its a bit confusing. Is the article about both or one of them? |
| Title of the Wiki | Good but could also be Risk Identification Methods in Project Management if that's your focus |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
If you are in doubt about how to make them in the wiki then have a look at the "Help" function in the side of the page or look at previous years articles. If you click "edit" in one of the old ones you can see how it is done but please do not change anything. |
| Other | Abstract should be the first. Consider only writing about risk identification methods in either project, program or portfolio management. |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon
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?
Answer 1
The summary is pretty general but it gives some insights about the further development of the article. I would anyway spend more words on the description of the tool (just a bit more deep) and on more specific purposes of the article.
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?
Answer 2
The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.
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?
Answer 3
There are some minors grammatical aspects that could be improved.
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?
Answer 4
The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.
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?
Answer 5
The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.
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?
Answer 6
The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.
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?
Answer 7
The reference used is fine. Obviously there's the need to add more references.
