User:Kenneth Roman/Risk management framework/Andrew Guarino Peer Review

General info

 * Username: Kenneth Roman
 * Article:Risk management framework

Lead
The article lead is short and sweet, and also the majority of the article's content. It states what the article is about, where it's from, and outlines what the steps of the process are. The article is a specialized, describing one particular thing, and it does that well. The steps of the process could be split off into their own section outside the lead, but that might be over-complicating the article with an unnecessary section.

Content
The content that's there is all 100% relevant to the topic and it seems to be a complete overview of said topic. There exists a newer version of the primary source, and updating the article to reflect that might be a good idea, but it wouldn't very much change the article's core content.

Tone and Balance
The tone and balance is good. There's not a whole lot that's said, and what is said is said in a neutral and descriptive tone, just as it should be. I can find no issue to raise with the tone and balance.

Sources and References
The primary source is the nist.gov publication that establishes and details RMS. It's brought up in the second paragraph of the lead, where it's linked to and contextualized. The link works and leads to a PDF of the document itself, which is about as good of a source as one could hope for. There are links in the See also section that lead to the program that preceded this one and the Cyber risk quantification article, which helps to further contextualize the subject of the article and gives the reader somewhere else to go to read more. All of the links work.

Organization
There's one subsection under the lead, and that seems like the best way to do it. The article describes an abstract set of rules for a process rather than a subject or object, and the Risks section contextualizes the article well for those who may not know — which is probably most of us. It's all clearly laid out and written in a way that's easy to read. The only mechanical error I saw is in the first sentence, where the sentence uses the singular subject "The Risk Management Framework" and goes on to label it with the plural "is a United States federal government policy and standards". Lop off that extra S and it should all be good.

Overall impressions
The article is short and sweet, describing exactly what the subject is and contextualizing it in relation to other wikipedia pages. If I wanted to know what RMS was and I read that article, I would come away with a good understanding of what it is and know where to read more about related topics. The article could be improved by updating the information to match the latest version of SP 800-37, Rev. 2, which is linked to from the link in the article. I'm unsure what the differences are between the two, but detailing those (how the thing has been updated) might be a good thing to add to the article.