Talk:Stakeholder Management Processes in Projects
Feedback on Abstract
| Text clarity | Really good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Stakeholder management is described but it is missing description of the specific process/method you are focusing on |
| Explanation of the purpose of the article | Really good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Good |
| References | References can be used in the beginning to back up the abstract (and don’t forget references for the images as well). |
| Other | Try to narrow down the focus. Perhaps choose a process/processes to do an in-depth description. Apart from that, good. |
Peer review by Jesper Antonius Wolters
Is your Wiki article relevant? • Does it address a topic that is relevant for project managers? • Is the purpose clearly articulated, i.e. what kind of problem the article addresses (and solves)? Is the Wiki article usable? • Does the article provide hands on guidance? Can the reader (at least prototypically) apply the method after reading the article? • 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? • Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? • Formal aspects: Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear and provide meaningful support? Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? 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? Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Is the Wiki article credible? • Critical reflection on status quo of standards: To what degree are the core arguments of your wiki article covered by the P/P/P standards and literature? To what degree does your article extend (or maybe contradict) the status quo? • Use of reference material provided in class: Elements from the reference material were appropriately incorporated into the article. • Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work (reference material provided, and appropriate other sources where necessary)? Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
