Talk:Management of risk

From apppm
Revision as of 18:31, 22 September 2015 by S113440 (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Reviewer 2: Jacob Before the final deliverance, I would suggest a thorough spell- and gramma check, as well as revamping where you set full stops, since there are many unnecessarry and wrongfully placed full stops, which severely limits the readability (Example: ""chance or probability of loss". Meaning that only negative results could" - the full stop should in this case have been a comma, if anything) Secondly, parts of a website is called sections, not chapters, for the unwritten reference you have. You also have a few other references that haven't been created yet - I would suggest removing the references and possibly just giving a short description of what you're referring to instead (For instance, COntingency in the "For Projects" section). Next, you're not following the structure of the article as supposed - I'm not sure how much of a problem that is, though, since the alternative structure you have used make sense to me, and also includes many of the requirements from the description (i.e. Introduction, limitations, Big idea (although renamed)). I would also suggest a few more figures, for instance of Fault Trees, or some of the other methods, just to give a different visual effect. Finally, I would elaborate on the subjects of the General methodology, the Important principles and the benefits, making them more than just a set of bullet points.

Reviewer 1: Lea

  • You are following the Method-article type. The general outline of your article gives good guidance to the topic. I am missing a bit of the application or implementation part.
  • Structure: There is a good structure but the “abstract” in the beginning and the first heading introduction are not very clear. A short summary of the article would be good. Also an abstract should not exceed 200 words.
  • Introduction. It is said that one ISO guide complements the other. Is this information relevant? Maybe an explanation of why you start out with the ISO guide.
  • There are a few spelling mistakes, but your sentences are short and can be easily read.
  • The figure in the beginning cannot be read. Maybe change the pixel size. If you do not have more complimentary figures, I think it is fine. Otherwise one or two more pictures would give a better overview.
  • The subject is interesting and definitely corresponds to the course subject. Since there are still some Headings without text, I guess you are not done writing yet. For the further progress I would suggest to try and get more “grip” on the topic. Narrow it down in the end to maybe one tool.
  • Sources are unfortunately a little sparse. I would suggest to get more information from relevant articles or books.
  • Annotated bibliography has not yet been added.
  • Some words are highlighted in the text but they are just linked to a blank page. Maybe you wanted to link the text to other wiki articles?
Personal tools