Talk:Fault tree analysis - Revision history

Charles Henri Gayot at 21:38, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T21:38:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 22 September 2015
Line 10:		Line 10:
	As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track.		As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track.

	<u>s141074- Reviewer ~~n°3~~</u> <br/>		<u>s141074- Reviewer n°2</u> <br/>
	Hej! I really liked the article for two reasons : the "wiki" style and the clarity of what you have said. Now, I would be able to make a FTA, so you manage to get to the main point!		Hej! I really liked the article for two reasons : the "wiki" style and the clarity of what you have said. Now, I would be able to make a FTA, so you manage to get to the main point!
	However, here are a few suggestions.		However, here are a few suggestions.

Charles Henri Gayot at 21:37, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T21:37:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 22 September 2015
Line 10:		Line 10:
	As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track.		As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track.

			<u>s141074- Reviewer n°3</u> <br/>
			Hej! I really liked the article for two reasons : the "wiki" style and the clarity of what you have said. Now, I would be able to make a FTA, so you manage to get to the main point!
			However, here are a few suggestions.
			About the content:
			*You don't really link the topic to Risk Management. You have a probability of a certain risk, then how do you use it? You could give a few example, maybe directly in the wiki.
			* Even better, state a full example of Risk Management using FTA: when you talk about the history of the FTA, develop in which case it was used so that we better understand when to use it.
			*We don't know if the result is accurate: you offer "limitations", but you could have a part about Alternatives/See Also (eventually linked to Wikipedia for instance)
			*Just out of curiosity, yousay that the probability of the final event is then calculated from the probability of the initial events, is it just a simple multiplication?
			*About the "The whole picture is not covered" limitation, is there tool to check the quality of the tree or it is a subjective tool?
			Some formal aspects:
			*Having two tables of contents is a bit weird, you should skip the explanation of your parts
			*The FTA is hard to read, you should increase the font size.
			*The "limitations" part has a very strange repetition, delete the initial list of limitations
			That's it, very nice article otherwise and very easy to follow!

	<u>s103745 - Reviewer n°1</u> <br/>		<u>s103745 - Reviewer n°1</u> <br/>

S103745 at 16:40, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T16:40:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 22 September 2015
Line 17:		Line 17:
	* Maybe you should consider moving history part to the top of your article before Big Idea.		* Maybe you should consider moving history part to the top of your article before Big Idea.
	* A conclusion and an annotated bibliography would be a great idea to finish your article with.		* A conclusion and an annotated bibliography would be a great idea to finish your article with.

			Some small changes to you article you will be done in no time, keep up the good contribution to science.

S103745 at 16:38, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T16:38:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 22 September 2015
Line 9:		Line 9:
	* All in all, I would say that your big parts would benefit from having a small introduction to explain the main lines you will tell about.		* All in all, I would say that your big parts would benefit from having a small introduction to explain the main lines you will tell about.
	As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track.		As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track.


			<u>s103745 - Reviewer n°1</u> <br/>
			First of all thanks for a great article about the Fault Tree Analysis, you have done a great job and you meet almost all the requirements of the Wiki article guide but there are some few points you may consider about.
			* Great job on figure 1 but the quality of your figure is not good maybe you should create a caption for your figure and make it little smaller.
			* An introduction for the Application part is missing, it will be better if you give a short introduction to where the FTA is used or can be used.
			* Maybe you should consider moving history part to the top of your article before Big Idea.
			* A conclusion and an annotated bibliography would be a great idea to finish your article with.

Gaetangarnotel at 13:24, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T13:24:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:24, 22 September 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Anna: Very nice, I like that you have chosen Risk Management as the overall topic but narrowed your scope to only talk about a specific tool. Nice to see that you have already thought about the structure also.		Anna: Very nice, I like that you have chosen Risk Management as the overall topic but narrowed your scope to only talk about a specific tool. Nice to see that you have already thought about the structure also.

	<u>Gaetangarnotel - Reviewer n°3</u></br>		<u>Gaetangarnotel - Reviewer n°3</u> <br/>
	Hello :)</br>		Hello :) <br/>
	First of all, I want to say that I think that your article is quite good, I liked it when I read it, and in overall, it has been clear to me. Yet, I have some recommendations that you could follow if you think that they are relevant:		First of all, I want to say that I think that your article is quite good, I liked it when I read it, and in overall, it has been clear to me. Yet, I have some recommendations that you could follow if you think that they are relevant:
	* In your introduction, I would not talk about the limitations of the method yet. As I consider it, the introduction aims to tease people, give the will to read more. In fact, it is in the conclusion that I would summarize the all article and write one or two sentences on the limitations. By the way, you should definitely write a conclusion. This part is absolutely fundamental.		* In your introduction, I would not talk about the limitations of the method yet. As I consider it, the introduction aims to tease people, give the will to read more. In fact, it is in the conclusion that I would summarize the all article and write one or two sentences on the limitations. By the way, you should definitely write a conclusion. This part is absolutely fundamental.
	* In the "concept and purpose", we cannot read very clearly the figure. You have many solutions to fix the problem. First, try to summarize a little and get rid of some parts. Second, change the colors to create a better contrast. Third, put a little window instead of		* In the "concept and purpose", we cannot read very clearly the figure. You have many solutions to fix the problem. First, try to summarize a little and get rid of some parts. Second, change the colors to create a better contrast. Third, put a little window instead of a big one and ask the reader to go to the picture's page so we have it in its real size. Moreover, if you say "figure 1 shows", you should actually put "Figure 1:..." under the picture.
			* I would say that the "history" part should be more elaborated. I have the feeling that such a method comes from a long time so you may find more information to share on that point. But I may be wrong.
			* All in all, I would say that your big parts would benefit from having a small introduction to explain the main lines you will tell about.
			As a final word, there is still work to do so you can hand it in but you are on the right track.

Gaetangarnotel at 13:00, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T13:00:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:00, 22 September 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Anna: Very nice, I like that you have chosen Risk Management as the overall topic but narrowed your scope to only talk about a specific tool. Nice to see that you have already thought about the structure also.		Anna: Very nice, I like that you have chosen Risk Management as the overall topic but narrowed your scope to only talk about a specific tool. Nice to see that you have already thought about the structure also.

			<u>Gaetangarnotel - Reviewer n°3</u></br>
			Hello :)</br>
			First of all, I want to say that I think that your article is quite good, I liked it when I read it, and in overall, it has been clear to me. Yet, I have some recommendations that you could follow if you think that they are relevant:
			* In your introduction, I would not talk about the limitations of the method yet. As I consider it, the introduction aims to tease people, give the will to read more. In fact, it is in the conclusion that I would summarize the all article and write one or two sentences on the limitations. By the way, you should definitely write a conclusion. This part is absolutely fundamental.
			* In the "concept and purpose", we cannot read very clearly the figure. You have many solutions to fix the problem. First, try to summarize a little and get rid of some parts. Second, change the colors to create a better contrast. Third, put a little window instead of

AnnaGreve: Created page with "Anna: Very nice, I like that you have chosen Risk Management as the overall topic but narrowed your scope to only talk about a specific tool. Nice to see that you have already..."

2015-09-16T12:26:36Z

Created page with "Anna: Very nice, I like that you have chosen Risk Management as the overall topic but narrowed your scope to only talk about a specific tool. Nice to see that you have already..."

New page

Anna: Very nice, I like that you have chosen Risk Management as the overall topic but narrowed your scope to only talk about a specific tool. Nice to see that you have already thought about the structure also.