Talk:PRINCE2, A Project Management Methodology
Anna: Nice article choice, and nice to see that you have chosen a specific method. Remember to include the elements listed in the requirements in your structure, such as the limitations of the method for example.
I will reply to the reviews in red color text
Gaetangarnotel - Reviewer n°2
First of all, I think that it is a really good work. You met all the main requirements and succeeded in making me understand the method clearly. In particular, I like the fact that you have put a lot of pictures so w can also visually understand what you have written. Yet, I have some advice that I may kindly give you to be even better:
- In the overview of principles, you should summarize all the paragraphs since the big titles just cut the text so some readers may lose the track. If you use another figure summarizing your elements, and explain it in this part, that would be perfect.
- It is exactly the same remark for the "Overview of Themes". Put this in one big part with small bold titles. It will enable an easier reading.
The titles of this article are different, elements as a level 1 titles and descriptions as a subtitles. i think it is more structured and shows that there are different subparts in a element, if i had summarized everything under one title, the reader will maybe think that there is only one principle and not 7. But i have changed all the titles and i hope that my changes can keep the reader on track.
- For the scalability, I would like to know a bit more or make it more concrete. It is a frustration you have created to me since your article is well written and interesting :)
- A conclusion is missing. All in all, 3000 words are a lot, so we need to have a kind of summary at the very end. Just bring all we have learnt through the article together and explicit the way you have built it.
But again, I want to tell you that I appreciated reading your article, it is well written, clear and understandable. You have definitely almost finished ;)
The Scalability section is now more concrete and a conclusion is provided at the end of the article, thank you for the useful feedbacks
Feedback by S141506, Reviewer 3
- The article is very nicely made. It starts from the method and progress step by step explaining what the article is about. The reader can easily understand what the article is about.
- I also think that it needs conclusion in the end. There is so much information in the article that it is hard to grasp without finalising it all together.
Same point was mentioned by the first review, and this has been changed according to has comment.
- Language is good in the article, I didn't find grammar mistakes. But of course it's good to do final checking one more time.
- Very nice to have all the sources and bibliography in the article. It shows hard work and that the article is reliable.
- Very nicely made article about method that I personally didn't have much information about.
Reviewer n°1 - s141074
This article is very interesting, I didn't know much about PRINCE2 before, I feel I have learn a lot, but I am a bit frustrated of not understanding how to use it. But that is partly due to the Wiki style. For a Wiki article, the style is excellent, but for a newbie to PRINCE2 like me, I miss an example that could guide me throughout the presentation. Or at least you could say how companies adapt it to their needs or example of successful implementation with external links. The pictures are very good as well, I just have one small concern, are you sure that they are not copyrighted? And quickly, a very few formal aspects:
- The first picture is blurry (and probably copyrighted)
I have fixed the blurry picture, and provided a reference for copyright reason.
- You can make a list in the Methods and Applicability part
- You should rework the hierarchy, it is sometimes hard to follow (you should use "==" for your main titles rather than "=".
But very nice work otherwise!
These to comments cover the same aspect, review 2 had a similar comment about this. The listing and titling for the article has been changed according to review 2.
- One small typo : "this element us a core concept
'''Us''' has been changed to '''As'''