Talk:Managing Uncertainty and Risk on the Project

tool that can be applied for managing uncertainty and risk in a project. Remember that your article has to fit one of the two article types and the required structure -)

Review1, Buurbuur: 

• I found the topic very interesting and very relevant for this course.
• Good that many point are illustrated with an appropriate figure.
• However i think you scope maybe is too big, maybe just focus on managing uncertainty and risk in either project or portfolio
• In the definition section i find it difficult to understand and navigate between all the different definitions, maybe it could make it more easy and understandable if you make a grid to show the difference. Or list them up on bulletspoints
• Secure that the article fit to one of the two article types i relation to the required topics
• Write the full wording before abbreviation in this case i refer to the use of FMEA
• However I find the figures clear and understandable
• Good that there are references on every figure

Author feedback: I have changed to scope, so that I have a clearer scope on project management and excluded the portfolio part. I deleted a part of the definition section, so that it made more sense. Also I changed the "body" of the article to fit it to Article type 1. I made the full name before the acronym and made it as hyperlink.

Reviewer 2:Andkamp

• Great use of English and nice sentences structure
• Great subject but, very broad, needs to be narrowed a little bit
• Nice figures, but the matrix with the papers is something I expected to be illustrated in matrix and not a Figure, in order to maintain the wiki style of the article.
• Nice Referencing of the figures, although it hadn't any inter-wiki links or in text links.
• The interest of a practitioner could be greater if there was more focusing in aspects of this subject.
• Profound relation with project management
• The good structure assures logical flow
• Extremely poor reference material for such extended article, that could lead someone with bad intensions to think that there's some amount of plagiarism
• Expected to see pros/cons
• Implementations would narrow the whole subject and make it more interesting

Generally speaking a more wiki style text, with hyperlinks,more bibliography and see also section would be more appropriate to this great text.

Author feedback: I tried to narrow the article so that I have focus on project management and the tool. I deleted that part with the comparing the different definitions. I have made the relevant inter-wiki links that fitted in this article. I have answered how to use the the tool. I have used more references, so the credibility is higher. Limitations and strengths has been added as well.

Reviewer 3 - s141938

+

• abstract at the beginning
• captions and figure numbering
• gramatically correct. easy and pleasant to read
• nice references to the graphs - everything is explained nicely

-

• separate consequences in the definitions into paragraphs
• "In the beginning of the a project the uncertainty is very high and depending on the size of the project and to decrease the mission uncertainty it can some extend be used” - I think you're missing something at some point
• really broad - maybe give some methods that are used to minimize risk and uncertainty cause this would stick more with the method type of article
• Advantages and limitations ? (required in the method type article)
• Add more references for higher credibility ;)
• maybe restructure the definition section, to make the article easier to scan quickly

Conclusion: Great article and properly written, but needs to be restructured a bit for quicker scanning of the article and to fit the method article type.

Author feedback: I deleted a part of the definition section so that it made more sense. I scoped the article so that I focused on project management part only. I added limitation/strengths part. I also added more references (I was just not finished with the article at that point) :) I fitted the article to the type 1 article, so that I have the right structure.