Talk:Mapping stakeholders - Revision history

Lugama3 at 22:40, 1 December 2014

2014-12-01T22:40:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:40, 1 December 2014
Line 73:		Line 73:
	The classification looks kind of messy - i would suggest that you maybe make some kind of table or other to make it easy to read		The classification looks kind of messy - i would suggest that you maybe make some kind of table or other to make it easy to read
	For table i use a really easy setup stolen from the [[Complexity]] site or udner bubble diagram		For table i use a really easy setup stolen from the [[Complexity]] site or udner bubble diagram

			= reply to MartinKruck =

			==Formal==

			* Few punctuation errors. Remember capital letters.
			* The sentences are very compact. Try to ad some more "meat".
			* Great figures for Stakeholder Assessment and Salience Model. Makes you miss an equally great figure for for the power/interest grid.
			** ''thank you so much for the good comments, I already had a second look to fix the grammar/ spelling/ Punctuation, re structured the sentences and improve the power/influence grid!''


			==Content==
			* I find the article very interesting. You are off to a good start, but lose commitment already after the introduction.
			* I find your article too short as it is right now. Try elaborating more on everything except maybe the preliminary summary, which only need minor changes.
			* When doing bullets, describing different aspects of a case, you should start the bullet the same way every time. Especially in the classification part.
			**''I tried to get a little bit more deep into the themes, and improve the understanding of the articule, also to write mor about the power/influence grid, because was to short. I find bullet points really useful in wikki articules, so I will keep working on that ''
			==General comments==
			*I think that you can dive deeper into your article and elaborate much more on the different aspects. When writing remember to have an explanation, an analysis and preferably a discussion/conclusion

			Otherwise I see great potential in this article. You are touching one of the lighter parts of APPPM, but that does not make it unimportant. One of the pitfalls is that you easily takes your knowledge for granted, so be aware of the needs of the reader.

			Keep up the good work!

			Thank you some much for the fed back! I really appreciate your comments and the nice tone you use to say things :) I will tried to improve from your addings!!

			== Extra from Tallimac ==

			Hey Fellow APPM-mate

			Looks great and i love the 7edge circle.

			The classification looks kind of messy - i would suggest that you maybe make some kind of table or other to make it easy to read
			For table i use a really easy setup stolen from the [[Complexity]] site or udner bubble diagram

			**[[Yes you are write, I will try to write in a better way to be clear, but a table will also be really useful to be clear at the classification]]

			Thank you so so much for your feedback :)

Lugama3: /* Peer review from Eniram */

2014-12-01T22:30:30Z

Peer review from Eniram

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 1 December 2014
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Formal aspects:		Formal aspects:

	* I don't think there is any spelling errors, maybe a few; however, maybe you would like to choose between British or American English and use always the same (analyze vs. ~~analyse~~)		* I don't think there is any spelling errors, maybe a few; however, maybe you would like to choose between British or American English and use always the same (analyze vs. analyze)
	* Your article is not always grammatically correct; some sentences does not have a verb! This usually occurs when you make lists, and you made a lot.		* Your article is not always grammatically correct; some sentences does not have a verb! This usually occurs when you make lists, and you made a lot.
	* About punctuation: after you use colons (':'), especially when you define terms, you should start a new sentence (subject + verb + complement) that comes as an explanation; what I mean is that the term you define should not be the subject of the sentence coming after the colon, or that means you do not need the colon.		* About punctuation: after you use colons (':'), especially when you define terms, you should start a new sentence (subject + verb + complement) that comes as an explanation; what I mean is that the term you define should not be the subject of the sentence coming after the colon, or that means you do not need the colon.
	* Your sentences are really succinct, sometimes too much (I think); it can be hard to get to the point.		* Your sentences are really succinct, sometimes too much (I think); it can be hard to get to the point.
			** ''I think i need a whole overview of the whole articule, so I had into account all the past points in a new reading for corrections.''
	* You chose nice and clear figures that illustrates your points well		* You chose nice and clear figures that illustrates your points well
	* It would be nice if you could add a figure for the part about the power/interest grid, to have a visual idea of what it is		* It would be nice if you could add a figure for the part about the power/interest grid, to have a visual idea of what it is
	* You don't really refer to your figures in the text; the reader understands that you are writing about the figure, but it is not directly stated		* You don't really refer to your figures in the text; the reader understands that you are writing about the figure, but it is not directly stated
	* I think you made the figures yourself, am I right? So in this case there is no copyright issue.		* I think you made the figures yourself, am I right? So in this case there is no copyright issue.
			**''Thank you for the good comments! now I included the figure for the third method and I referred all of them in the articule''
	* The general formatting is correct; however in the part about the salient model and more specifically in the "classification" part, don't start a new paragraph for the definition of each term, but write it next to the term it defines.		* The general formatting is correct; however in the part about the salient model and more specifically in the "classification" part, don't start a new paragraph for the definition of each term, but write it next to the term it defines.
			** ''you are right, is also something to correct''
	* Your references are not organised properly: the references 1, 2 and 3 refer to the same reading material.		* Your references are not organised properly: the references 1, 2 and 3 refer to the same reading material.
			**''I didn't knew how to do it properly, but now I used the same reference for the three parts ''



Line 19:		Line 24:
	* I was really confused about the summary. Are you talking about stakeholders mapping here? Who are 'they'?		* I was really confused about the summary. Are you talking about stakeholders mapping here? Who are 'they'?
	* Is your article only about construction projects?		* Is your article only about construction projects?
			**''this last to are also gramma mistake to correct''
	* Your article is interesting but you don't really introduce it. From my point of view, the article is missing a proper definition of a stakeholder, and an explanation about why it is so important to manage them and why the mapping techniques you describe are important.		* Your article is interesting but you don't really introduce it. From my point of view, the article is missing a proper definition of a stakeholder, and an explanation about why it is so important to manage them and why the mapping techniques you describe are important.
	* Your article clearly relates to project management and stakeholders analysis, but you never say so; maybe you could explain the role of the stakeholder mapping in project management, at which phase of a project it is important and why, at which stage of stakeholders analysis is stakeholders mapping involved, etc.		* Your article clearly relates to project management and stakeholders analysis, but you never say so; maybe you could explain the role of the stakeholder mapping in project management, at which phase of a project it is important and why, at which stage of stakeholders analysis is stakeholders mapping involved, etc.
			** ''there is already an articule about stake holder analysis, maybe i should link it in my articule''
	* About the length of the article, I honestly do not like very long wiki articles, because you never find what you want. But here, I think your article is too short.		* About the length of the article, I honestly do not like very long wiki articles, because you never find what you want. But here, I think your article is too short.
			**''Now is a little bit longer, but as you said, I also don't find wikki long articule to handy''
	* Two of the mapping methods you present are quite detailed, while the third one is really short.		* Two of the mapping methods you present are quite detailed, while the third one is really short.
			**"i needed to work more on this third articule, and I did it''
	* You are very succinct all along; I think that what you write about is obvious to you, so you don't feel the need to explain a lot; however it is not for the one who reads, and it is sometimes difficult to follow you.		* You are very succinct all along; I think that what you write about is obvious to you, so you don't feel the need to explain a lot; however it is not for the one who reads, and it is sometimes difficult to follow you.
	* I think that you miss some introductions to your elements, in order to contextualise them, for example explain the origins of the methods, what kinds of organisations use them and for what kind of projects...		* I think that you miss some introductions to your elements, in order to contextualise them, for example explain the origins of the methods, what kinds of organisations use them and for what kind of projects...
	* Overall, for me your article is a statement, a description. You do not provide any explanation, contextualisation or analysis of what you are writing about.		* Overall, for me your article is a statement, a description. You do not provide any explanation, contextualisation or analysis of what you are writing about.
			**''I tried to improve a bit in the structure of the articule to make it more understandable, but some things may be known by background( like the stake older analysis)''
	* There is no real flow in your article. I see it more like a big list.		* There is no real flow in your article. I see it more like a big list.
			**''i find it more easy to understand, but is a good point to consider''
	* I didn't go through the sources, otherwise you would never have had this review today, but the sources seem sufficient and of high-quality (academic papers)		* I didn't go through the sources, otherwise you would never have had this review today, but the sources seem sufficient and of high-quality (academic papers)
	* You made references in your titles: does it mean that all the paragraph is written from what you read in only the one paper referenced? Or do your paragraphs contain some of your ideas? It is not clearly possible to know when you write about your ideas or someone else's.		* You made references in your titles: does it mean that all the paragraph is written from what you read in only the one paper referenced? Or do your paragraphs contain some of your ideas? It is not clearly possible to know when you write about your ideas or someone else's.
			**''they mean to be based on the original theories, but they are also my ideas''

			this was a hard but really useful feedback, I really appreciate this!! thank you so much for your inputs :)


	= MartinKruck peer review =		= MartinKruck peer review =

Tallimac: /* Extra from Tallimac */

2014-11-30T22:36:25Z

Extra from Tallimac

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 30 November 2014
Line 61:		Line 61:

	The classification looks kind of messy - i would suggest that you maybe make some kind of table or other to make it easy to read		The classification looks kind of messy - i would suggest that you maybe make some kind of table or other to make it easy to read
	For table i use a really easy setup stolen from the [[~~Portfolio Managment~~]] site		For table i use a really easy setup stolen from the [[Complexity]] site or udner bubble diagram

Tallimac: /* Extra from Tallimac */ new section

2014-11-30T22:34:42Z

Extra from Tallimac: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 30 November 2014
Line 53:		Line 53:

	Keep up the good work!		Keep up the good work!

			== Extra from Tallimac ==

			Hey Fellow APPM-mate

			Looks great and i love the 7edge circle.

			The classification looks kind of messy - i would suggest that you maybe make some kind of table or other to make it easy to read
			For table i use a really easy setup stolen from the [[Portfolio Managment]] site

MartinKruck: /* MartinKruck peer review */

2014-11-25T23:12:27Z

MartinKruck peer review

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 25 November 2014
Line 30:		Line 30:
	* You made references in your titles: does it mean that all the paragraph is written from what you read in only the one paper referenced? Or do your paragraphs contain some of your ideas? It is not clearly possible to know when you write about your ideas or someone else's.		* You made references in your titles: does it mean that all the paragraph is written from what you read in only the one paper referenced? Or do your paragraphs contain some of your ideas? It is not clearly possible to know when you write about your ideas or someone else's.

	== MartinKruck peer review ==


			= MartinKruck peer review =

	==Formal==		==Formal==

MartinKruck: /* MartinKruck peer review */ new section

2014-11-25T23:11:57Z

MartinKruck peer review: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, 25 November 2014
Line 29:		Line 29:
	* I didn't go through the sources, otherwise you would never have had this review today, but the sources seem sufficient and of high-quality (academic papers)		* I didn't go through the sources, otherwise you would never have had this review today, but the sources seem sufficient and of high-quality (academic papers)
	* You made references in your titles: does it mean that all the paragraph is written from what you read in only the one paper referenced? Or do your paragraphs contain some of your ideas? It is not clearly possible to know when you write about your ideas or someone else's.		* You made references in your titles: does it mean that all the paragraph is written from what you read in only the one paper referenced? Or do your paragraphs contain some of your ideas? It is not clearly possible to know when you write about your ideas or someone else's.

			== MartinKruck peer review ==

			==Formal==

			* Few punctuation errors. Remember capital letters.
			* The sentences are very compact. Try to ad some more "meat".
			* Great figures for Stakeholder Assessment and Salience Model. Makes you miss an equally great figure for for the power/interest grid.


			==Content==
			* I find the article very interesting. You are off to a good start, but lose commitment already after the introduction.
			* I find your article too short as it is right now. Try elaborating more on everything except maybe the preliminary summary, which only need minor changes.
			* When doing bullets, describing different aspects of a case, you should start the bullet the same way every time. Especially in the classification part.

			==General comments==
			*I think that you can dive deeper into your article and elaborate much more on the different aspects. When writing remember to have an explanation, an analysis and preferably a discussion/conclusion

			Otherwise I see great potential in this article. You are touching one of the lighter parts of APPPM, but that does not make it unimportant. One of the pitfalls is that you easily takes your knowledge for granted, so be aware of the needs of the reader.

			Keep up the good work!

Eniram: /* Peer review from Eniram */ new section

2014-11-25T15:55:51Z

Peer review from Eniram: new section

New page

== Peer review from Eniram ==

Formal aspects:

* I don't think there is any spelling errors, maybe a few; however, maybe you would like to choose between British or American English and use always the same (analyze vs. analyse)
* Your article is not always grammatically correct; some sentences does not have a verb! This usually occurs when you make lists, and you made a lot.
* About punctuation: after you use colons (':'), especially when you define terms, you should start a new sentence (subject + verb + complement) that comes as an explanation; what I mean is that the term you define should not be the subject of the sentence coming after the colon, or that means you do not need the colon.
* Your sentences are really succinct, sometimes too much (I think); it can be hard to get to the point.
* You chose nice and clear figures that illustrates your points well
* It would be nice if you could add a figure for the part about the power/interest grid, to have a visual idea of what it is
* You don't really refer to your figures in the text; the reader understands that you are writing about the figure, but it is not directly stated
* I think you made the figures yourself, am I right? So in this case there is no copyright issue.
* The general formatting is correct; however in the part about the salient model and more specifically in the "classification" part, don't start a new paragraph for the definition of each term, but write it next to the term it defines.
* Your references are not organised properly: the references 1, 2 and 3 refer to the same reading material.

Content aspects:

* I was really confused about the summary. Are you talking about stakeholders mapping here? Who are 'they'?
* Is your article only about construction projects?
* Your article is interesting but you don't really introduce it. From my point of view, the article is missing a proper definition of a stakeholder, and an explanation about why it is so important to manage them and why the mapping techniques you describe are important.
* Your article clearly relates to project management and stakeholders analysis, but you never say so; maybe you could explain the role of the stakeholder mapping in project management, at which phase of a project it is important and why, at which stage of stakeholders analysis is stakeholders mapping involved, etc.
* About the length of the article, I honestly do not like very long wiki articles, because you never find what you want. But here, I think your article is too short.
* Two of the mapping methods you present are quite detailed, while the third one is really short.
* You are very succinct all along; I think that what you write about is obvious to you, so you don't feel the need to explain a lot; however it is not for the one who reads, and it is sometimes difficult to follow you.
* I think that you miss some introductions to your elements, in order to contextualise them, for example explain the origins of the methods, what kinds of organisations use them and for what kind of projects...
* Overall, for me your article is a statement, a description. You do not provide any explanation, contextualisation or analysis of what you are writing about.
* There is no real flow in your article. I see it more like a big list.
* I didn't go through the sources, otherwise you would never have had this review today, but the sources seem sufficient and of high-quality (academic papers)
* You made references in your titles: does it mean that all the paragraph is written from what you read in only the one paper referenced? Or do your paragraphs contain some of your ideas? It is not clearly possible to know when you write about your ideas or someone else's.