Talk:Power, politics and stakeholder management
(→Answer 7) |
JensMoller (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
You have alot of references and they seem to work as intended. Still need to explain a couple of the reference description, but again i expect you will finish that as well. | You have alot of references and they seem to work as intended. Still need to explain a couple of the reference description, but again i expect you will finish that as well. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jens Esben Okholm Møller== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The abstract sets the scene and highlights the focus pretty well. I miss some summary regarding the power and politics. The abstract summarizes the stakeholder management well. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 arguments are very easy to follow. | ||
| + | I just miss the extent of power/influence, that can be used towards different stakeholders. e.g. private stakeholder, professionel and so on. Is it the same degree of power that should be used. | ||
| + | No contradictions. | ||
| + | I think the guide could use some more explanation, as you have written in the note. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | very well written, I think read it through a couple of times more, and then you will find some small errors. But very nice and easy to understand. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Nice illustrative pictures. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | high practical use, maybe you could detail your guide a bit more go more in depth with the steps. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The power/influence perspective is really interesting in combination with the stakeholder management. I think the combinantion of these should be introduced earlier, so the interesting stuff is there in the beginning. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | High standard of annotated bibliography. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''In general good work. :)''' | ||
Latest revision as of 15:52, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to focus in the power and politics aspects and avoid to write a too generic article.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonathan Nøddeskov Clifford
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
The abstract does its job :)
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
The abstract defined the flow the article and the structure makes sense. You are not done with it yet but what you have done seems fine
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
Generally the grammar is fine, but there are a few areas where the language is abit off.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
Good use of figures, nice to see you bieng creative and making them yourself ;)
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
Good use of figures, nice to see you bieng creative and making them yourself ;)
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
You make use of alot of material that isnt available through a web search, so yes i think its more useful than a cursory web search. You have not really touched limitations yet, but i expect you will get around to that soon :)
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
You have alot of references and they seem to work as intended. Still need to explain a couple of the reference description, but again i expect you will finish that as well.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jens Esben Okholm Møller
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
The abstract sets the scene and highlights the focus pretty well. I miss some summary regarding the power and politics. The abstract summarizes the stakeholder management well.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
The arguments are very easy to follow. I just miss the extent of power/influence, that can be used towards different stakeholders. e.g. private stakeholder, professionel and so on. Is it the same degree of power that should be used. No contradictions. I think the guide could use some more explanation, as you have written in the note.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
very well written, I think read it through a couple of times more, and then you will find some small errors. But very nice and easy to understand.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
Nice illustrative pictures.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
high practical use, maybe you could detail your guide a bit more go more in depth with the steps.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
The power/influence perspective is really interesting in combination with the stakeholder management. I think the combinantion of these should be introduced earlier, so the interesting stuff is there in the beginning.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
High standard of annotated bibliography.
In general good work. :)
