Talk:Stakeholder Management

All the feedback has been addressed and my response has been written underneath each point in bold.

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.

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