Talk:Four Stages of Team Development
REVIEW by Liclawio
- In general, a very nice setup of wikipage. Seems like proper use of the wiki platform.
- Nice structure overview, short concise sentences and paragraphs making it easy to read.
- Decent length of article. Would not have any harm in a bit further extensions here and there
- Concise overview of the theory on the field. However, the context of the article seems to be built on some extensive theory. References to these could be good, so the reader has the possibility to get more in depth with the underlying theory. I had this in consideration. I couldn’t use appropriately the references until last Tuesday. I will add them
- Beside the overview of the theory. How can it be applied? Which lessons are to be learned, or perhaps traps/pitfalls to be avoided, and how? I added some explanations to the conclusion.
- How can it be related to project- program- or portfolio management? I think it is more or less explained on the article. As Lyngby suggested, I changed the word “work” for “project”. This was, it is visible that the article is related to Project Management
- Figures/tables could be included into the context of the writing. Also difficult to figure, whether they are own figures/tables, or taken from somewhere, and in that case whether usage is ok. The table is taken from the article I refer to in Reference 1, whose link seems to not be working. The figure is taken from the book I refer to in Reference 2. Both of them are remade by me, but putting the same information.
- The link to reference 1 currently seems to be malfunctioning. It is a pdf download link, although that wasn’t the problem. I had colon (:) just after the link and that was why it wasn’t working. I have put also the main page where that article can be found
- In general very good spelling and language.
- A few places with strange sentence cutoffs. Seems like something is missing to the sentence (fx. “It is now when members are more committed to seek the team’s objectives and when their competences are higher.”). Maybe it sounds strange. I will try to find another way to say this
- It could be a good idea to consider whether the article should be written in British English, or American English, and sticking to the decision. US English will be without the letter u in behavior (similar with colour, flavour etc), where UK English in general use the letter s in places where US will use z (recognise, organise, realise, centralise etc.) I tried to write the article in British English, but those words are always a problem to me. I already changed them into UK English
- The word “which” does appear a lot, also a few places where it could perhaps make sense to replace with other wordings (fx. “which the structure is and which goals they will seek”) I’m aware of it, but I just can’t find another way to say it
Thank you very much for reviewing my article. It really helped a lot
Feedback - Lyngby:
It a very interesting article written in an engaging style. Very nice piece of work with a logical flow. Well done.
- I would add an abstract (summary) before the table of content and the introduction you wrote. I think like this it’s fine. In my opinion it’s summarized what I’m going to talk about later
- The figure and the chart you provided perfectly illustrate your article.
The 2nd figure you added is not referenced in the text. You could maybe add a sentence to introduce it or add a title. I added a title under the figure and also made it smaller
- Your article is perfectly formatted. You made a great use of formatting tags (bold/italic). However, in the third stage, I would write “Norming” in bold. Yes, it’s true. I made so many changes that I forgot at the end.
- In order to make sure the article is related to PROJECT management and not management, you could use the term “project” instead of “work” in some sentences. You are right. This way it’s clearer that it is related to Project Management
- I am not sure these sentences are free of grammatical errors:
- The team focuses on defining how the team will work, which the structure is and I thought it was ok, but maybe it’s quite confusing. I will change it
- This may lead to competence for consideration of different ideas. : Do you mean : “This may lead to competence to consider different ideas ?” Yes, that is way I was trying to say
- I would try to avoid some repetitions. I changed it and used some of these synonyms
- “goals” : objective/target/aim
- “to reach the state of high-performance/ When teams reach the high-performance” : achieve
-“to complete their tasks/wors” : to fulfill
- One small mistake in the conclusion: “Tuckman´s theory can STILL be applied” Yes, it’s wrong
- Did you only use these 2 references to write your article? You could maybe add some more. Yes, I did. I have to add them still
Good luck I hope you the same
Thank you very much for your help