Talk:Maximum tolerable period of disruption
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Small improvements done to this article
[edit]Hi all, I added two synonims for MTPOD that share the acronym "MAO". Also tweaked a bit the article, but it would certainly benefit from a major revamp! I'll try to make time in the next couple weeks to improve it, help will be much appreciated.
Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maximum tolerable period of disruption. Please take a moment to review my edit. Done If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090717220729/http://e-janco.com/MaximumTolerablePeriodofDisruption%20.html to http://e-janco.com/MaximumTolerablePeriodofDisruption%20.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
To Do list
[edit]Here is my proposed list of things to address to improve the quality of this article. I will check these off as done as I complete them. Feel free to expand the list or contribute. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Process for determination
[edit]- Revise content to improve quality by naming processes from a variety of authoritative standards. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Include discussion of Recovery time objective (RTO) and Work Recovery Time (WRT) as necessary factors for calculating MDT / MTO. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Image
[edit]- Obtain a higher quality image(s).
- Verify that the included diagrams match authoritative definitions.
- Display multiple images if processes described by authoritative standards differ. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
References
[edit]- Format references using standard Wiki citation templates. Done Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Verify all references and replace out of date references.
- Cite all contemporary authoritative references to obtain neutrality and consensus. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
See also
[edit]- Add Wiki links to related terms RTO, WRT, BIA, Business continuity planning. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
External links
[edit]- Add links to a variety of high-quality Web articles.
- Remove redundant links already included in references. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Categories
[edit]- Add to categories reflecting relevance to information security, information technology, business continuity.
- Adjust category reflecting article quality rating if inappropriate. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Quality rating
[edit]- Verify existing claim of C-Class quality was obtained through proper process. Done}
- Was the quality of this article rated using the official process? At first glance I doubt it. The article looked like a stub when I first viewed it today and that is not flaming or bashing.
- I see that the original author of this article rated it himself immediately after its creation. I am removing the importance and quality rating with the intent of submitting to independent reviewer / committee after updates.Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Submit for quality review after completion of To Do list. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)