Revision as of 00:12, 26 November 2014

Peer review from Eniram

Formal aspects:

• I don't think there is any spelling errors, maybe a few; however, maybe you would like to choose between British or American English and use always the same (analyze vs. analyse)
• Your article is not always grammatically correct; some sentences does not have a verb! This usually occurs when you make lists, and you made a lot.
• About punctuation: after you use colons (':'), especially when you define terms, you should start a new sentence (subject + verb + complement) that comes as an explanation; what I mean is that the term you define should not be the subject of the sentence coming after the colon, or that means you do not need the colon.
• Your sentences are really succinct, sometimes too much (I think); it can be hard to get to the point.
• You chose nice and clear figures that illustrates your points well
• It would be nice if you could add a figure for the part about the power/interest grid, to have a visual idea of what it is
• You don't really refer to your figures in the text; the reader understands that you are writing about the figure, but it is not directly stated
• I think you made the figures yourself, am I right? So in this case there is no copyright issue.
• The general formatting is correct; however in the part about the salient model and more specifically in the "classification" part, don't start a new paragraph for the definition of each term, but write it next to the term it defines.
• Your references are not organised properly: the references 1, 2 and 3 refer to the same reading material.

Content aspects:

• I was really confused about the summary. Are you talking about stakeholders mapping here? Who are 'they'?
• Is your article only about construction projects?
• Your article is interesting but you don't really introduce it. From my point of view, the article is missing a proper definition of a stakeholder, and an explanation about why it is so important to manage them and why the mapping techniques you describe are important.
• Your article clearly relates to project management and stakeholders analysis, but you never say so; maybe you could explain the role of the stakeholder mapping in project management, at which phase of a project it is important and why, at which stage of stakeholders analysis is stakeholders mapping involved, etc.
• About the length of the article, I honestly do not like very long wiki articles, because you never find what you want. But here, I think your article is too short.
• Two of the mapping methods you present are quite detailed, while the third one is really short.
• You are very succinct all along; I think that what you write about is obvious to you, so you don't feel the need to explain a lot; however it is not for the one who reads, and it is sometimes difficult to follow you.
• I think that you miss some introductions to your elements, in order to contextualise them, for example explain the origins of the methods, what kinds of organisations use them and for what kind of projects...
• Overall, for me your article is a statement, a description. You do not provide any explanation, contextualisation or analysis of what you are writing about.
• There is no real flow in your article. I see it more like a big list.
• I didn't go through the sources, otherwise you would never have had this review today, but the sources seem sufficient and of high-quality (academic papers)
• You made references in your titles: does it mean that all the paragraph is written from what you read in only the one paper referenced? Or do your paragraphs contain some of your ideas? It is not clearly possible to know when you write about your ideas or someone else's.

MartinKruck peer review

Formal

• Few punctuation errors. Remember capital letters.
• The sentences are very compact. Try to ad some more "meat".
• Great figures for Stakeholder Assessment and Salience Model. Makes you miss an equally great figure for for the power/interest grid.

Content

• I find the article very interesting. You are off to a good start, but lose commitment already after the introduction.
• I find your article too short as it is right now. Try elaborating more on everything except maybe the preliminary summary, which only need minor changes.
• When doing bullets, describing different aspects of a case, you should start the bullet the same way every time. Especially in the classification part.

General comments

• I think that you can dive deeper into your article and elaborate much more on the different aspects. When writing remember to have an explanation, an analysis and preferably a discussion/conclusion

Otherwise I see great potential in this article. You are touching one of the lighter parts of APPPM, but that does not make it unimportant. One of the pitfalls is that you easily takes your knowledge for granted, so be aware of the needs of the reader.

Keep up the good work!