View source for Talk:Stakeholder Management Processes in Projects

==Feedback on Abstract==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Really good
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Stakeholder management is described but it is missing description of the specific process/method you are focusing on
|-
|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| Really good
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Good
|-
|'''References'''|| References can be used in the beginning to back up the abstract (and don’t forget references for the images as well).
|-
|'''Other'''|| Try to narrow down the focus. Perhaps choose a process/processes to do an in-depth description. Apart from that, good.

|}

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Jesper Antonius Wolters''==
===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===
A comprehensive summary that is precise and not too long. It makes it clear for the reader what the topic is about and what the article will go in depth with, e.g. that 4 processes will be covered. There might be a paragraph or 2 that could be cut shorter.   

===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 different parts of the article are well connected. A good introduction which leads to the main content of the article which is the well rounded off. There are plenty of figures to support the information written in the article. Figure 1 seems like a bit of an overkill given what it represents, is it needed to show 20 stakeholders.   

===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===

Overall the grammar is fine, there are some grammatical errors and locations where future and past tense is interchanged, e.g. in the summary. 

===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===

As said there are plenty of figures to support the points being made which helps the reader. it is also clearly indicated where the figures have been inspired from and who has made them. 

===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 article has a high level of as well practical as academic relevance today. Besides from what is mentioned earlier I do not have something to suggest to improve. 

===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===

For anyone interested in management, the article is interesting. The topic is well defined and the author has gone in depth with the article. Noted that most references are made to source 1 (PMI) which are beyond a cursory web search. 

===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===
Annotated bibliography has not been finished and can thus not be commented. Source 1 seems to be the most relevant to acknowledge.