Talk:Stakeholder Management - Revision history

AnnaGreve: /* Review - B wiki */

2014-12-01T16:59:02Z

Review - B wiki

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 1 December 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
			All the feedback has been addressed and my response has been written underneath each point in '''bold'''.

	== Review - B wiki ==		== Review - B wiki ==

AnnaGreve: /* Review - B wiki */

2014-12-01T13:20:43Z

Review - B wiki

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:20, 1 December 2014
Line 7:		Line 7:
	::'''It would have been nice with some elaboration on this point, to get a better idea of which aspects...'''		::'''It would have been nice with some elaboration on this point, to get a better idea of which aspects...'''
	*In the first section, you could briefly introduce who is Freeman and what is Prince2		*In the first section, you could briefly introduce who is Freeman and what is Prince2
			::'''Thank you for this suggestion, I have added a few lines about each of these to give them a proper introduction'''
	*In the “How and when should you create stakeholder engagement?” section, I find quite messy the citations from different sources. Maybe it is a problem of punctuation marks		*In the “How and when should you create stakeholder engagement?” section, I find quite messy the citations from different sources. Maybe it is a problem of punctuation marks
	::'''I have changed it now and made it into a more coherent text with only the most valuable quotes'''		::'''I have changed it now and made it into a more coherent text with only the most valuable quotes'''

AnnaGreve: /* Review by Bdmn */

2014-12-01T13:19:52Z

Review by Bdmn

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:19, 1 December 2014
Line 45:		Line 45:
	*Pictures		*Pictures
	** Refer to the pictures to make it easier to know when to look at it. E.g. I don't know when to look at "The typology of Stakeholder Integration Mechanisms"		** Refer to the pictures to make it easier to know when to look at it. E.g. I don't know when to look at "The typology of Stakeholder Integration Mechanisms"
			::'''I have now made sure that all the figures are refered to in the corresponding text, so that it actually makes sense to have them in the wiki page'''
	** A brief explanation to the picture would help. E.g. I don't understand the picture "The typology of Stakeholder Integration Mechanisms"		** A brief explanation to the picture would help. E.g. I don't understand the picture "The typology of Stakeholder Integration Mechanisms"
	::'''I have added detailed explanations to the fours aspects from the figures'''		::'''I have added detailed explanations to the fours aspects from the figures'''

AnnaGreve at 13:15, 1 December 2014

2014-12-01T13:15:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:15, 1 December 2014
Line 38:		Line 38:
	::'''I have changed it now and made it into a more coherent text with only the most valuable quotes'''		::'''I have changed it now and made it into a more coherent text with only the most valuable quotes'''
	*Instrumental stakeholder theory is mentioned but not explained. Maybe add a part in the section of stakeholder theories?		*Instrumental stakeholder theory is mentioned but not explained. Maybe add a part in the section of stakeholder theories?
			::'''I have elaborated on the stakeholder theories and changed the placement of this in order to make it fit better into the flow of the article'''

	Formal aspects:		Formal aspects:

AnnaGreve: /* Review by Bdmn */

2014-12-01T13:13:23Z

Review by Bdmn

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 1 December 2014
Line 30:		Line 30:
	::'''thank you :)'''		::'''thank you :)'''
	*Short and concise, which is good! But some parts can be explained more. E.g. stakeholder theories		*Short and concise, which is good! But some parts can be explained more. E.g. stakeholder theories
	::'''I have developed on some of the explanations to make sure that everything is clear''''		::'''I have developed on some of the explanations to make sure that everything is clear'''

	Content aspects:		Content aspects:

AnnaGreve: /* Review by Bdmn */

2014-12-01T13:13:07Z

Review by Bdmn

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 1 December 2014
Line 41:		Line 41:
	Formal aspects:		Formal aspects:
	*Sub-headings can make the paragraphs more structured. E.g. in "How and when should you create stakeholder engagement?" the picture divides the text in two parts with different theme. A sub-heading for the second part can make it easier to see the connection to the first part.		*Sub-headings can make the paragraphs more structured. E.g. in "How and when should you create stakeholder engagement?" the picture divides the text in two parts with different theme. A sub-heading for the second part can make it easier to see the connection to the first part.
			::'''Sub-headings have now been added to create a better structure as per your suggestion'''
	*Pictures		*Pictures
	** Refer to the pictures to make it easier to know when to look at it. E.g. I don't know when to look at "The typology of Stakeholder Integration Mechanisms"		** Refer to the pictures to make it easier to know when to look at it. E.g. I don't know when to look at "The typology of Stakeholder Integration Mechanisms"

AnnaGreve at 12:18, 1 December 2014

2014-12-01T12:18:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:18, 1 December 2014
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Concept aspects:		Concept aspects:
	*In general, the structure is good, although I would have used shorter headings to help the reader		*In general, the structure is good, although I would have used shorter headings to help the reader
			::'''I have edited some of my headings to make them more "wiki-like"'''
	*Length around 2300 words is ok for this topic. May be, you could have explained more in detail some aspects you only name		*Length around 2300 words is ok for this topic. May be, you could have explained more in detail some aspects you only name
	::'''It would have been nice with some elaboration on this point, to get a better idea of which aspects...'''		::'''It would have been nice with some elaboration on this point, to get a better idea of which aspects...'''
	*In the first section, you could briefly introduce who is Freeman and what is Prince2		*In the first section, you could briefly introduce who is Freeman and what is Prince2
	*In the “How and when should you create stakeholder engagement?” section, I find quite messy the citations from different sources. Maybe it is a problem of punctuation marks		*In the “How and when should you create stakeholder engagement?” section, I find quite messy the citations from different sources. Maybe it is a problem of punctuation marks
	::'''I have changed it now and made it into a more coherent text'''		::'''I have changed it now and made it into a more coherent text with only the most valuable quotes'''

	Formal aspects:		Formal aspects:
Line 27:		Line 28:
	==Review by Bdmn==		==Review by Bdmn==
	*Overall a good structured wiki-article with good language.		*Overall a good structured wiki-article with good language.
			::'''thank you :)'''
	*Short and concise, which is good! But some parts can be explained more. E.g. stakeholder theories		*Short and concise, which is good! But some parts can be explained more. E.g. stakeholder theories
			::'''I have developed on some of the explanations to make sure that everything is clear''''

	Content aspects:		Content aspects:
	*Is the project group the only downward stakeholder?		*Is the project group the only downward stakeholder?
			::'''In the book where I have read about this, they only mention the project group, I have added a figure to clarify a bit'''
	* The paragraph under the heading "How and when should you create stakeholder engagement?" is a bit difficult to grab. It is a bit confusing with only the quotes. Maybe try to rewrite it more fluently or restructure it by creating a table.		* The paragraph under the heading "How and when should you create stakeholder engagement?" is a bit difficult to grab. It is a bit confusing with only the quotes. Maybe try to rewrite it more fluently or restructure it by creating a table.
			::'''I have changed it now and made it into a more coherent text with only the most valuable quotes'''
	*Instrumental stakeholder theory is mentioned but not explained. Maybe add a part in the section of stakeholder theories?		*Instrumental stakeholder theory is mentioned but not explained. Maybe add a part in the section of stakeholder theories?

Line 39:		Line 44:
	** Refer to the pictures to make it easier to know when to look at it. E.g. I don't know when to look at "The typology of Stakeholder Integration Mechanisms"		** Refer to the pictures to make it easier to know when to look at it. E.g. I don't know when to look at "The typology of Stakeholder Integration Mechanisms"
	** A brief explanation to the picture would help. E.g. I don't understand the picture "The typology of Stakeholder Integration Mechanisms"		** A brief explanation to the picture would help. E.g. I don't understand the picture "The typology of Stakeholder Integration Mechanisms"
			::'''I have added detailed explanations to the fours aspects from the figures'''
	** Remember to add a source to the picture		** Remember to add a source to the picture
			::''' Sources have been added now :)'''
	* Overall good use of citations and relevant sources, however:		* Overall good use of citations and relevant sources, however:
	** some citations are not "wiki-style" e.g. (Donaldson & Preston, 1995), (Jones, 1995, p. 422) and (Dill, 1958)		** some citations are not "wiki-style" e.g. (Donaldson & Preston, 1995), (Jones, 1995, p. 422) and (Dill, 1958)
			::'''all citations should now be in the wiki-format'''
	**some parts are missing citations, e.g. first part of the discussion includes many statements without sources.		**some parts are missing citations, e.g. first part of the discussion includes many statements without sources.
			::'''I have added references where i could see that they were missing'''

AnnaGreve: /* Review - B wiki */

2014-11-30T18:46:26Z

Review - B wiki

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 30 November 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:
	*In general, the structure is good, although I would have used shorter headings to help the reader		*In general, the structure is good, although I would have used shorter headings to help the reader
	*Length around 2300 words is ok for this topic. May be, you could have explained more in detail some aspects you only name		*Length around 2300 words is ok for this topic. May be, you could have explained more in detail some aspects you only name
			::'''It would have been nice with some elaboration on this point, to get a better idea of which aspects...'''
	*In the first section, you could briefly introduce who is Freeman and what is Prince2		*In the first section, you could briefly introduce who is Freeman and what is Prince2
	*In the “How and when should you create stakeholder engagement?” section, I find quite messy the citations from different sources. Maybe it is a problem of punctuation marks		*In the “How and when should you create stakeholder engagement?” section, I find quite messy the citations from different sources. Maybe it is a problem of punctuation marks
			::'''I have changed it now and made it into a more coherent text'''

	Formal aspects:		Formal aspects:
	*Try to use more punctuation marks, such as commas. These way, it is easier for the reader		*Try to use more punctuation marks, such as commas. These way, it is easier for the reader
			::'''Thank you, i have revised my article, and hopefully the flow is better now'''
	*Some grammatical and spelling errors found:		*Some grammatical and spelling errors found:
	**Not appropriate use of auxiliary verbs: “it is important that these ''are'' discussed”		**Not appropriate use of auxiliary verbs: “it is important that these ''are'' discussed”
			:: '''I have run my article through spell-check now to find all these small mistakes'''
	**Past participles: “be ''classified''”		**Past participles: “be ''classified''”
	:: thank you - that was a typo		:: '''thank you - that was a typo'''
	**“''Performance''” is written together		**“''Performance''” is written together
	:: '''I think this hyphenation happened when i copied the tekst into the htlm code.'''		:: '''I think this hyphenation happened when i copied the tekst into the htlm code.'''

AnnaGreve at 11:26, 30 November 2014

2014-11-30T11:26:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:26, 30 November 2014
Line 14:		Line 14:
	:: thank you - that was a typo		:: thank you - that was a typo
	**“''Performance''” is written together		**“''Performance''” is written together
	:: I think this hyphenation happened when i copied the tekst into the htlm code.		:: '''I think this hyphenation happened when i copied the tekst into the htlm code.'''
	*Sometimes not appropriate usage of References		*Sometimes not appropriate usage of References
	**If you are saying in the text “as described by”, you should say who said it and then put the reference		**If you are saying in the text “as described by”, you should say who said it and then put the reference
	:: I have now added what article I am refereing to.		:: '''I have now added what article I am refereing to.'''
	*The figures are helpful to understand the concept, but maybe more explanation is needed		*The figures are helpful to understand the concept, but maybe more explanation is needed
	:: I have now added more explanation to the Typology figure, this was the intention the whole time, i just ~~didnt have~~ the time to do it for the first deadline.		:: '''I have now added more explanation to the Typology figure, this was the intention the whole time, i just hadn't had the time to do it for the first deadline.'''

	==Review by Bdmn==		==Review by Bdmn==

AnnaGreve: /* Review - B wiki */

2014-11-26T13:17:56Z

Review - B wiki

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:17, 26 November 2014
Line 12:		Line 12:
	**Not appropriate use of auxiliary verbs: “it is important that these ''are'' discussed”		**Not appropriate use of auxiliary verbs: “it is important that these ''are'' discussed”
	**Past participles: “be ''classified''”		**Past participles: “be ''classified''”
			:: thank you - that was a typo
	**“''Performance''” is written together		**“''Performance''” is written together
			:: I think this hyphenation happened when i copied the tekst into the htlm code.
	*Sometimes not appropriate usage of References		*Sometimes not appropriate usage of References
	**If you are saying in the text “as described by”, you should say who said it and then put the reference		**If you are saying in the text “as described by”, you should say who said it and then put the reference
			:: I have now added what article I am refereing to.
	*The figures are helpful to understand the concept, but maybe more explanation is needed		*The figures are helpful to understand the concept, but maybe more explanation is needed
			:: I have now added more explanation to the Typology figure, this was the intention the whole time, i just didnt have the time to do it for the first deadline.

	==Review by Bdmn==		==Review by Bdmn==