Talk:Portfolio Risk Management Process
(→Answer 7) |
|||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | The article has a logical flow with regards to the introduction of the four areas you find important, so that is nice and well executed - i cannot though understand all in the sections you have written because you introduce many concepts or theories - i would suggest you introduced them in bullet point or in '''Bold''' so the reader can have a fix point on the different theory parts when reading |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | The article is well formulated and understandable. There is a few spelling mistakes but as this is a draft i expect you will find them :P | |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | No figures yet, but looking forward to seeing your creative side ;) | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | Risk management is always relevant! You still need to fill out the last 2 steps of your "process". The identification and analysis chapters are good, but i would definetly try to get some figures to support the method. | |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | I would suggest( as just mentioned above) maybe to show a tool you describe in the article, how to use it with regards to your subject? personally it would make it a bit more relevant as a reader. | |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ''Answer | + | Yes you have done a citation but when reading your article i thought you might need more? in both the identification section and the analyze section you mention many different technical terms - i would suggest backing them up with references - and of course summarize the key references at the end of the article :) |
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonathan Nøddeskov Clifford== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | You introduce the subject quickly which is nice, but then use alot of time explaining the specific steps of risk management. I feel you should use less time explaining the steps of risk management and more on its reference to portofolio management as the steps are further explained later in 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=== | ||
| + | I understand the structure and logic of the report but bullets points in the introduction would be a great addition. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Generally the article is well formulated and understandable. There are a couple of spelling mistakes and "wierd" sentences but as this is a draft im guessing these will be corrected. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | currently no figures - i know you have some - i would suggest you made some figures of ex. a risk register and perhaps some of the other tools you are talking about? it will help the reader understand the theory you are explaining | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Yes i think it will have relevance when it is finished - i don't see any practical "help" in the article - are you going to present one of the mentioned tools with a user guide? (i would maybe suggest that?) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | So far it looks good, perhaps a description and guide to one of the methods you mention. If you are planning for this in the last 2 steps thats fine as well. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Currently there is only one reference, i would definetly get references for the different methods you metion throughout the article. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:44, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article you can describe briefly the different tools/techniques and then focus in a specific tool/technique or as you mentioned in your note (*) developing a process.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Joachim Schou Larsen
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
I think it is nice that you from the start is "on spot" with the subject of the article - but maybe it is a bit too direct? maybe a little introduction of the issue and why it is relevant for PM? i think what you have written is fine but it need some kind of introduction ;)
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
The article has a logical flow with regards to the introduction of the four areas you find important, so that is nice and well executed - i cannot though understand all in the sections you have written because you introduce many concepts or theories - i would suggest you introduced them in bullet point or in Bold so the reader can have a fix point on the different theory parts when reading
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
The article is well formulated and understandable. There is a few spelling mistakes but as this is a draft i expect you will find them :P
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
No figures yet, but looking forward to seeing your creative side ;)
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
Risk management is always relevant! You still need to fill out the last 2 steps of your "process". The identification and analysis chapters are good, but i would definetly try to get some figures to support the method.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
I would suggest( as just mentioned above) maybe to show a tool you describe in the article, how to use it with regards to your subject? personally it would make it a bit more relevant as a reader.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
Yes you have done a citation but when reading your article i thought you might need more? in both the identification section and the analyze section you mention many different technical terms - i would suggest backing them up with references - and of course summarize the key references at the end of the article :)
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonathan Nøddeskov Clifford
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
You introduce the subject quickly which is nice, but then use alot of time explaining the specific steps of risk management. I feel you should use less time explaining the steps of risk management and more on its reference to portofolio management as the steps are further explained later in the article.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
I understand the structure and logic of the report but bullets points in the introduction would be a great addition.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
Generally the article is well formulated and understandable. There are a couple of spelling mistakes and "wierd" sentences but as this is a draft im guessing these will be corrected.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
currently no figures - i know you have some - i would suggest you made some figures of ex. a risk register and perhaps some of the other tools you are talking about? it will help the reader understand the theory you are explaining
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
Yes i think it will have relevance when it is finished - i don't see any practical "help" in the article - are you going to present one of the mentioned tools with a user guide? (i would maybe suggest that?)
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
So far it looks good, perhaps a description and guide to one of the methods you mention. If you are planning for this in the last 2 steps thats fine as well.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
Currently there is only one reference, i would definetly get references for the different methods you metion throughout the article.
