View source for Talk:Leadership styles

Anna: Hi I like the idea, however, I'm afraid that it doesn't really fit into either one of the two article types. This is not really a method, but you could easily choose a method within the topic of leadership.

== Review given by StephSalling, review3 ==
As far as I can tell, this article is not done yet, so I will possibly point out some things you were already planning to change or add.

==== Formal aspects ====
* The different parts in this “method” study are a bit hard to tell apart. The “big idea” is combined with the “application”, but none of them are really adequately described. From my point of view, the “limitations” part in the article is the best part, but it should be substantiated with some literature.
* The grammar, spelling and punctuation in the “introduction” and “conclusion” are generally good: There are only a few singular/plural mistakes. It seems that the “limitations” part has not been proofread as thoroughly as the other sections.
* Even though there are not many fill words in the sentences (which is very good), some of the sentences are a bit long and hard to follow. Maybe some bullet points illustrating the content of the different standards would help make it easier to read. - Or simply dividing the text into more paragraphs.
* Some illustrations of the content of the different standards could be helpful.
* With the many different standards mentioned and technical terms used it would be easy to add some references within the wiki-system.


==== Content aspects ==== 
* The subject of leadership styles and the different focus areas of a leader is very interesting, but I think the article would be more interesting for a practitioner if it elaborated the content of the standards and made a more clear comparison between them or just focused on one standard.
* The relation to a specific project, program or portfolio management topic is a bit hard to see, since the article contains more of an overview than it deals with a specific problem/method. 
* The article is very short. The remaining 2000 words could be put into good use focusing on a specific leadership style or comparing the content of the different standards as mentioned earlier. 
* The flow through the article so far is logical.
* References should be given to the sources used.
* It is hard to judge the quality of the sources used for the article as they are not directly given. From the different standards mentioned in the text, it seems that the sources are trustworthy and of high quality.
* The article does not contain an annotated bibliography of any source. 
* The article does not link to other relevant pages in the APPPM wiki.
* The “introduction” is very objective and does not leave the reader in doubt of that statements are substantiated by literature and not “own opinion”. The “limitations” part however seems more like “own opinion” statements, but this is not given anywhere.
* The article seems to be free of “copy & paste” plagiarism since the sources of the different statements are mentioned in the text, but as there are no actual references (I can see that an attempt to use citation has been made but not completed) I cannot be sure.