Talk:Stakeholder Management
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→Review - B wiki) |
|||
| 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.''' | ||
Revision as of 19:46, 30 November 2014
Review - B wiki
Concept aspects:
- 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
- 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 “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:
- 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.
Review by Bdmn
- Overall a good structured wiki-article with good language.
- Short and concise, which is good! But some parts can be explained more. E.g. stakeholder theories
Content aspects:
- Is the project group the only downward stakeholder?
- 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.
- Instrumental stakeholder theory is mentioned but not explained. Maybe add a part in the section of stakeholder theories?
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.
- 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"
- A brief explanation to the picture would help. E.g. I don't understand the picture "The typology of Stakeholder Integration Mechanisms"
- Remember to add a source to the picture
- 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 parts are missing citations, e.g. first part of the discussion includes many statements without sources.
