Talk:Leadership styles

Latest revision as of 21:27, 22 September 2015

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.

[edit] Review of S141926, Reviewer 1

[edit] General formal aspects

• Overall the writing is clear and precise with the use of appropriate technical words. However, I found some words mistranslated from Danish and minor grammatical issues.
• In my opinion, I think it would make the article easier to be read if you added more full stops and you split the, under my point of view, too long paragraphs. I liked the paragraph where you make questions and answer them. However, I think that this part would be clearer in bullet points (under my point of view).
• As I mention in the following section, the limitations/solutions part could be nicely shown in a format table to make the article more readable as well as adding some graphics to illustrate the methodology.
• I suggest you to review the Wikipedia formatting, I can see some references and links not well defined or linked.

[edit] Review of the content

• Regarding the Introduction part I think that gives a too general conclusion and does not focus enough to the main topic of the article, which is Leadership styles. Under my point of view, it is too focused on Standards and Managers competences and I am missing some more specific information about leadership in general.
• I think it would also improve your article to get more into detail on the different skills required for a project manager under different scenarios.
• Apart from the fact that as I said I think there is some information missing that would make the article more understandable, I think that you would also had to add some more writing in order to fulfil the requirements regarding length.
• I would advise to review the requirements of the article type and adding a method regarding leadership and define the uses/limitations of this particular method.
• I liked the limitations and problems pointed out when saying that a manager does not have to possess technical skills in the project he/she manages and all problems that come up due to this matter. I found the information given interesting but it might be a good idea to type those problems/solutions in a tabular format or in separated paragraphs.
• I think it would be a good idea to add some more conclusions. However, I found the ones you mentioned relevant and a good summary of the above explained.
• Remember also to add the references part, I am afraid it is compulsory :) And maybe a Table of contents at the beginning.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Reviewer: Faker, review2

Clarity of writing. Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

There are some spelling error and a few inconsistant grammatical errors, but it is not disrupting for understanding the article.

The language seems very lenghty and is most possibly emphasized by the lack of chapters, paragraphs, line breaks, etc.

Clarity of the argument. 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?

With the lack of headlines and description of chapters, the article seems very disorganized.

The word "leadership" is first introduced in the last fifth of the article, which seems very strange to me. Being in the title of the article, I would assume it to be mentioned more often.

Thinking I was going to read an article about "Leadership styles", the first half of the article seemed to be very much out of context.

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

It might just be me, but I could not see the relevance of the first half of the article.

The second to last chapter ("This naturally raises ...") seemed like a rather complete text and a good mixture of "Big idea" and "Application".

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

As the cites have not been fully implemented yet, it is tough to determined exactly how well it is cited, but there seems to be a lot of references. This also makes it hard to determine the degree of emperical data to opinion, but the article definitely comes across as academic.

Is the article properly linked within the Wiki to other relevant articles and category summaries?

There are seemingly no links to other articles within the Wiki.