Talk:Risk identification methods - Revision history

S172420: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon */

2019-02-25T21:29:14Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 25 February 2019
Line 54:		Line 54:
	It is not clear for me the processes you have to go through for the risk identification - does it have a framework?		It is not clear for me the processes you have to go through for the risk identification - does it have a framework?
	Maybe explain a bit more in details the methods you listed for the risk identification.		Maybe explain a bit more in details the methods you listed for the risk identification.


	There are some repetition related to the definition of risks, you mention more than 2 times in the introduction part. Maybe it is not necessary..?		There are some repetition related to the definition of risks, you mention more than 2 times in the introduction part. Maybe it is not necessary..?
Line 73:		Line 72:
	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===

	~~There~~ are ~~some minors grammatical aspects that could~~ be ~~improved~~.		As I said before, some sentences are too complex and need to be easier to read. I would recommend to avoid to use the commas and just cut the sentences instead.

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 86:		Line 85:
	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===

	~~The only abstract does~~ not ~~give enough information~~ to ~~answer this question~~.		Missing - I had the same problem and I did not know how to add them. ;)

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 98:		Line 97:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
			The article and topic are good and relevant to the course, in my opinion. It is clear the aim of the article even though it still needs some further developments.
	The ~~only abstract does not give enough information~~ to ~~answer this question~~.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 111:		Line 109:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
			With a more clear framework of the risk identification it would definitely be interesting and make a significant contribution.
	~~The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question~~.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 127:		Line 124:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===

	~~The reference used is fine. Obviously there's the~~ need to ~~add more references.~~		Good but they need to be in the "Wiki"-way

S172420: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon */

2019-02-25T21:24:30Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, 25 February 2019
Line 50:		Line 50:
	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===

	The ~~only abstract~~ does not ~~give enough information~~ to ~~answer this question~~.		The argument is quite clear although it is not finished, I guess. The flow is not smooth though: you started talking about risk management and I think you can link it better with risk identification. Maybe emphasise a bit more that is a step of the risk management.

			It is not clear for me the processes you have to go through for the risk identification - does it have a framework?
			Maybe explain a bit more in details the methods you listed for the risk identification.


			There are some repetition related to the definition of risks, you mention more than 2 times in the introduction part. Maybe it is not necessary..?

			Last part needs more development.

			I really like the topic and I think it is really relevant and inherent to the project management.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===

S172420: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon */

2019-02-25T20:50:24Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 25 February 2019
Line 29:		Line 29:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	The summary is ~~pretty general but it gives some insights~~ about ~~the further development of the article~~. I would ~~anyway spend more words on the description of the tool (just~~ a bit ~~more deep)~~ and ~~on more specific purposes~~ of the ~~article~~.		The summary is good overall. There is maybe a bit of confusion because you first talk about risks in project and then you talk about risks identification in programs.
			Some sentences are maybe too complex. I would recommend to short them down and make them a bit easier to read - sometimes commas might mislead and you have to read the sentences couple of times to understand the general content.

			But anyway good job, these are just minor adjustments.


	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===

S172420: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T20:46:15Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 25 February 2019
Line 19:		Line 19:
	\|'''Other'''\|\| Abstract should be the first. Consider only writing about risk identification methods in either project, program or portfolio management.		\|'''Other'''\|\| Abstract should be the first. Consider only writing about risk identification methods in either project, program or portfolio management.
	\|}		\|}

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Alberto Tognon==
			===Question 1 · TEXT===
			'''Quality of the summary:'''

			Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 1===
			The summary is pretty general but it gives some insights about the further development of the article. I would anyway spend more words on the description of the tool (just a bit more deep) and on more specific purposes of the article.

			===Question 2 · TEXT===
			'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

			Is the argument clear?

			Is there a logical flow to the article?

			Does one part build upon the other?

			Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 2===

			The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.

			===Question 3 · TEXT===
			'''Grammar and style:'''

			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 3===

			There are some minors grammatical aspects that could be improved.

			===Question 4 · TEXT===
			'''Figures and tables:'''

			Are figures and tables clear?

			Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 4===

			The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.

			===Question 5 · TEXT===
			'''Interest and relevance:'''

			Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

			Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 5===

			The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.

			===Question 6 · TEXT===
			'''Depth of treatment:'''

			Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

			Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 6===

			The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.

			===Question 7 · TEXT===
			'''Annotated bibliography:'''

			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

			Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

			Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 7===

			The reference used is fine. Obviously there's the need to add more references.

Ebkh: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| OK but could be a bit more clear |- |'''..."

2019-02-19T14:33:49Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| OK but could be a bit more clear |- |'''..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Good
|-
|'''Language'''|| Good
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| OK but could be a bit more clear
|-
|'''Purpose explanation'''|| Good but you switch from focusing on risks in projects to focus on programs afterwards its a bit confusing. Is the article about both or one of them?
|-
|'''Title of the Wiki'''|| Good but could also be Risk Identification Methods in Project Management if that's your focus
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
If you are in doubt about how to make them in the wiki then have a look at the "Help" function in the side of the page or look at previous years articles. If you click "edit" in one of the old ones you can see how it is done but please do not change anything.
|-
|'''Other'''|| Abstract should be the first. Consider only writing about risk identification methods in either project, program or portfolio management.
|}