Talk:Risk responses - Revision history

Ina: /* Answer 5 */

2018-02-19T21:22:52Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 19 February 2018
Line 162:		Line 162:
	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===

	The article gives a great practical guideline to a reader who does not know this theory and there is an academic relevance, but perhaps it could be more academically relevant if a broader material of references is used.		The article gives a great practical guideline to a reader who does not know this theory and there is an academic relevance, but perhaps it could be more academically relevant if a broader material of references is used. The risk respond is very relevant subject but I think it could be made more clear at the beginning of the article why it is relevant.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===

2018-02-19T21:17:32Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 19 February 2018
Line 189:		Line 189:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The references give valid information in the article, but you should find more sources and summarize the key references at the end of the article.

2018-02-19T20:50:53Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 19 February 2018
Line 174:		Line 174:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~
			The article gives a good overview of the planning, strategies and tools for the risk response process, but there are a lot of websites online that refer to the risk response process. I would recommend giving an example of risk in a specific project and how it is processed. This example could provide a better overview of a risk respond and how it is controlled.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===

2018-02-19T20:22:59Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 19 February 2018
Line 161:		Line 161:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~
			The article gives a great practical guideline to a reader who does not know this theory and there is an academic relevance, but perhaps it could be more academically relevant if a broader material of references is used.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===

2018-02-19T20:01:45Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 19 February 2018
Line 136:		Line 136:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	~~''Answer here''~~
			The grammar and spelling are good and readable. I could only find one gramma correction in the "Assessment" section in the "Qualitative risk assessment", you mention “the Probability” with a capital letter, should it not just be with a lowercase letter?

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===

2018-02-19T19:52:54Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 19 February 2018
Line 123:		Line 123:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===

			The text in the article is coherent and there is a logical flow. The sections lead up to each other and are free of contradictions. I can see that some sections are not completed, but a couple of improvements can be considered. I would change the name of the "Identify risks" section to "Identification of risks". In my opinion, the Risk Register section is to short to be separated section, I would suggest to combine it with the "Identify risks" (Identification of risks) section. I would suggest explaining the examples of the quantitive methods in at least one sentence to define the difference between them and so the readers can have an idea about which method fits their project best. Finally, you should add a conclusion at the end.

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

2018-02-19T19:09:28Z

Answer 2

2018-02-19T19:05:33Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 19 February 2018
Line 102:		Line 102:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===

			The first section is very clear and sums up the focus points of the article. I would though suggest making a headline for the first part, either as "Abstract" or "Introduction", to make clear at the beginning which it is.

			Otherwise, I have only two suggestion about improvements in the first section.
			First, add a clear definition of what a risk is, you mention in the first sentence what uncertainty is but not what a risk is.
			Second, I would consider splitting this sentence into two sentences: "This article will give an overview of the planning, strategies and tools for the risk response process, as the project benefits of addressing risks by their priority, inserting resources and activities into the budget, schedule and project management plan as needed."

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

2018-02-19T12:47:25Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:47, 19 February 2018
Line 141:		Line 141:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Right now there are no figures, but there is one table. The table gives a good overview of the key points for risk response. I would suggest adding two figures to the article, figures of the inputs and the outputs of the qualitative risk assessment and the quantitative risk assessment, to get better vision over what is needed to make these assessments.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===

2018-02-19T11:12:56Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Justsen'

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:12, 19 February 2018
Line 77:		Line 77:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The article is most interesting for at acedemic as it only uses theory. it would be nice with some type of example or case, this will make it more relevant for a practitioner.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 91:		Line 91:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Good use of references. but a lack of briefly summarize, this will make it easy for the reader to use reference to furhter study.

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Ína Salome Sturludóttir'==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Ína Salome Sturludóttir'==