Talk:Fault tree analysis
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* All in all, I would say that your big parts would benefit from having a small introduction to explain the main lines you will tell about. | * All in all, I would say that your big parts would benefit from having a small introduction to explain the main lines you will tell about. | ||
As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track. | As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <u>s103745 - Reviewer n°1</u> <br/> | ||
| + | First of all thanks for a great article about the Fault Tree Analysis, you have done a great job and you meet almost all the requirements of the Wiki article guide but there are some few points you may consider about. | ||
| + | * Great job on figure 1 but the quality of your figure is not good maybe you should create a caption for your figure and make it little smaller. | ||
| + | * An introduction for the Application part is missing, it will be better if you give a short introduction to where the FTA is used or can be used. | ||
| + | * Maybe you should consider moving history part to the top of your article before Big Idea. | ||
| + | * A conclusion and an annotated bibliography would be a great idea to finish your article with. | ||
Revision as of 18:38, 22 September 2015
Anna: Very nice, I like that you have chosen Risk Management as the overall topic but narrowed your scope to only talk about a specific tool. Nice to see that you have already thought about the structure also.
Gaetangarnotel - Reviewer n°3
Hello :)
First of all, I want to say that I think that your article is quite good, I liked it when I read it, and in overall, it has been clear to me. Yet, I have some recommendations that you could follow if you think that they are relevant:
- In your introduction, I would not talk about the limitations of the method yet. As I consider it, the introduction aims to tease people, give the will to read more. In fact, it is in the conclusion that I would summarize the all article and write one or two sentences on the limitations. By the way, you should definitely write a conclusion. This part is absolutely fundamental.
- In the "concept and purpose", we cannot read very clearly the figure. You have many solutions to fix the problem. First, try to summarize a little and get rid of some parts. Second, change the colors to create a better contrast. Third, put a little window instead of a big one and ask the reader to go to the picture's page so we have it in its real size. Moreover, if you say "figure 1 shows", you should actually put "Figure 1:..." under the picture.
- I would say that the "history" part should be more elaborated. I have the feeling that such a method comes from a long time so you may find more information to share on that point. But I may be wrong.
- All in all, I would say that your big parts would benefit from having a small introduction to explain the main lines you will tell about.
As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track.
s103745 - Reviewer n°1
First of all thanks for a great article about the Fault Tree Analysis, you have done a great job and you meet almost all the requirements of the Wiki article guide but there are some few points you may consider about.
- Great job on figure 1 but the quality of your figure is not good maybe you should create a caption for your figure and make it little smaller.
- An introduction for the Application part is missing, it will be better if you give a short introduction to where the FTA is used or can be used.
- Maybe you should consider moving history part to the top of your article before Big Idea.
- A conclusion and an annotated bibliography would be a great idea to finish your article with.
