Talk:Manage Extreme Projects with Rapid Methodology

Review given by StephSalling, review2

Formal aspects

• The article follows the “method” structure very well.
• There are some grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors, maybe an extra proofreading would be a good idea (maybe by someone else, it is often helpful having a second pair of eyes read it through).
• The article is written in an engaging style in terms of content, but some sentences are a bit long and hard to follow.
• The figure is very illustrative, but a reference to the source for it might be a good idea. More figures would improve the reading experience, but I do not know if it is possible to find other relevant figures.
• Very nice use of table and bullet points.

Content aspects

• I think the article is interesting for a practitioner.
• The topic is clear and specific.
• The length of the article seems appropriate.
• There is a red thread through the article, however, the transition from XPM to Rapid Methodology could be smoother.
• The starting summary is sufficient and not too long.
• Your sources seem good and of high quality. You could maybe elaborate some of them (the “annotated bibliography” part).
• The use of the word “we” in some sentences is a bit confusing for me as it mixes up your “own opinion” with statements substantiated by literature.