Talk:Risk Profile in Turnkey Projects

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "*Review 1: - Good work. - Nice abstract. It comes around the article in a good way and you stick to the guideline from the abstract all the way. Only recommendation about the...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
*Review 1:
+
Review 1:
- Good work.  
+
*Good work.  
- Nice abstract. It comes around the article in a good way and you stick to the guideline from the abstract all the way. Only recommendation about the context in the abstract is to change your sentences so they don’t start with BUT, it’s not great. (there are two BUT-sentences in the first subparagraph)
+
*Nice abstract. It comes around the article in a good way and you stick to the guideline from the abstract all the way. Only recommendation about the context in the abstract is to change your sentences so they don’t start with BUT, it’s not great. (there are two BUT-sentences in the first subparagraph)
- After a few times reading the definitions it made sense. Maybe read it again with focus on making it very logical and clear. Take the reader by the hand; he/she should be able to understand it first time reading it.  
+
*After a few times reading the definitions it made sense. Maybe read it again with focus on making it very logical and clear. Take the reader by the hand; he/she should be able to understand it first time reading it.  
- It would have been nice with a few more references through the first few paragraphs about benefits and limitations.
+
*It would have been nice with a few more references through the first few paragraphs about benefits and limitations.
- Try to find a way maybe with “dots” or with smaller letters to clarify that the three aspects in risk are subtitles; right now they have the same size as the titles.
+
*Try to find a way maybe with “dots” or with smaller letters to clarify that the three aspects in risk are subtitles; right now they have the same size as the titles.
- Again missing references later in the article.
+
*Again missing references later in the article.

Revision as of 18:10, 22 September 2015

Review 1:

  • Good work.
  • Nice abstract. It comes around the article in a good way and you stick to the guideline from the abstract all the way. Only recommendation about the context in the abstract is to change your sentences so they don’t start with BUT, it’s not great. (there are two BUT-sentences in the first subparagraph)
  • After a few times reading the definitions it made sense. Maybe read it again with focus on making it very logical and clear. Take the reader by the hand; he/she should be able to understand it first time reading it.
  • It would have been nice with a few more references through the first few paragraphs about benefits and limitations.
  • Try to find a way maybe with “dots” or with smaller letters to clarify that the three aspects in risk are subtitles; right now they have the same size as the titles.
  • Again missing references later in the article.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox