Talk:Risk register

From apppm
Revision as of 21:26, 25 November 2014 by WinWin (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Hermaeus Mora

Structure

  • The language is clear and easily understandable. A couple commas may be missing and in the first section paragraph 3 "The risk register cannot only be used as a motivating risk management tool" could be formulated as "The risk register can be used not only as a motivating risk management tool;" apart from that it's good.
  • There's just one figure, more could be added as the article grows.
  • References to links are nicely made, the article uses a book, this should be referenced in the traditional wiki way <references />.
  • A category from APPPM is added which is nice, maybe add a few more e.g. Uncertainty, Risk etc.
  • Layout seems to be ok for now, abstract, introduction to the tool and its applications and an introduction to how the tool should be used.

Content

  • The article is obviously not finished yet (778 words as of the writing of this review) So the review can only regard the initial part.
  • The article clearly falls under the 'in-depth description of a particular method' category. It relates deeply to project management and, judging by the links attached, is based on fresh data.
  • The abstract is good in length and shows a fair purpose behind the tool. It could however include a few sentences about the tool itself, short summary, instead of a rather strong opinion that it's "THE optimum [...] tool within project management".
  • As mentioned before any book references should be added along with additional categories in APPPM wiki for further reading.

Review - WinWin

Structure

  • The overall feeling of the article is very positive. The language is precise and easy to understand. However, there are a few spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes, which will surely disappear in the editing process.
  • At the moment there is only one figure in the article. Using more figures will definitely have a positive effect on the visualization as the article gets further along.
  • Good use of references.
  • The layout seems to be fine for now.


Content

  • The preliminary content seems to be very relevant to the course. The paragraphs are nicely written but could profit from a few summarizing sentences.
  • The fresh data is a nice touch.
  • The abstract has a suitable length for this kind of article. Definitely a plus.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox