Talk:Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Various Project Stages

From apppm
Revision as of 12:54, 21 February 2018 by Gudmundur (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Gudmundur Hermannsson

Question 1

Quality of the summary:


What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

Easily understandable, nothing to improve

Question 2

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 article is clear and consistent in its argument. The "flow" is in place.

Question 3

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

The article is free from spelling and grammar errors. The text is in good shape, no repeating words.

Question 4

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 figures are relevant to the topic.

Question 5

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

In my opinion it is in a high practical relevance. The article it states how the topic is relevant.

Question 6

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

This article goes deeper into the the topic compared to a quick search on the internet-


Question 7

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 article cites some previous work. The author writes briefly about the key references.

Abstract Feedback

Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; missing references related to the standards.

In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget the references and try to connect with subject areas of risk from the standards.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox