Talk:Stakeholder Management
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→Review - B wiki) |
(→Review - B wiki) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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 == | ||
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...''' | ||
*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''' | ||
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''' | ||
**“''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 hadn't had the time to do it for the first deadline.''' | ||
| − | ==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? | ||
| + | ::'''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: | ||
*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" | ||
| + | ::'''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''' | ||
** 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''' | ||
Latest revision as of 17:59, 1 December 2014
All the feedback has been addressed and my response has been written underneath each point in bold.
[edit] Review - B wiki
Concept aspects:
- 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
- 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
- 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
- I have changed it now and made it into a more coherent text with only the most valuable quotes
Formal aspects:
- 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:
- 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”
- thank you - that was a typo
- “Performance” is written together
- I think this hyphenation happened when i copied the tekst into the htlm code.
- 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
- I have now added what article I am refereing to.
- 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 hadn't had the time to do it for the first deadline.
[edit] Review by Bdmn
- 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
- I have developed on some of the explanations to make sure that everything is clear
Content aspects:
- 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.
- 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?
- 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:
- 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
- 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"
- I have added detailed explanations to the fours aspects from the figures
- Remember to add a source to the picture
- Sources have been added now :)
- 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)
- 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.
- I have added references where i could see that they were missing
