Talk:Waterfall model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Waterfall model: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2018-01-16

  • Remove pejorative, sneering tone of the whole article!
  • Format
    • Maybe change the arguments against from a bulleted list to paragraphs?
    • Remove the arguments for BDUF? It has its own page now...
  • Wikification
    • Needs more links
  • Maybe one or two more images
    • sashimi model?
    • one of the other modified waterfall models?
  • More peer review to make sure that all objections on bias and accuracy grounds are covered
    • There are still accusations that the article is biased against waterfall - review from a supporter would be great
    • Further clarify that there's a difference between the straw man model of Royces paper and the waterfall model in actual practice
  • Copyedit (spelling, grammar, writing style)
  • Removal of weasel words (many people, some people, allege, claim, sneer quotes (e.g. "pure", "flawed", "wrong"))
  • Referencing! Especially on advantages / disadvantages / criticisms / users.
  • Change the example from Wikipedia to something else (no self reference)
  • Expand the modified waterfall models section: "other" probably needs to be split into "waterfall w/ subprojects" and "waterfall w/ risk reduction"
  • Either provide references to substantial actual use of the 'non iterative' waterfall model OR adjust the article to reflect the fact that true waterfall has never been more than a straw-man argument used in the advocation of new methodologies.
  • Fix resources: Resource under link [16] is not working anymore. Maybe using this resource was not smart? I couldn't find anything simillar.

The waterfall model is not an "argument"[edit]

"some sceptics suggest that the waterfall model is a false argument"

I'm sorry, in what sense could the waterfall model possibly be construed as an argument? GeneCallahan (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the piece used to support the statement? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect characterization[edit]

The statement "Thus the waterfall model maintains that one should move to a phase only when its preceding phase is reviewed and verified." is not a correct interpretation of what Royce wrote. In fact, he explicitly warns against this as "risky and invites failure". KeithC (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Be bold and fix it then, but this is' the main problem with waterfall. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Does or did the waterfall model ever even exist?[edit]

While the term "waterfall" certainly exists, none of the references on the page support that it was ever an actual project management approach. It seems to be nothing more than a pejorative term. A sort of bucket into which all bad project management approaches can be put. Is there any evidence that the "waterfall model" ever existed? Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Having looked more deeply at the references on this page, they're dreadful. Royce (the reference on which the whole article almost depends) does not say what he's supposed to have said in the referenced paper and the rest of the references are full of "some say". If no-one has better references I'm going to do a pretty tight cropping of the whole article. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Still no satisfactory references on here. The article seems to be based on misquoting a few articles - generally from very long ago - and then claiming (without reference) that the "waterfall" approach so demonized in previous years as a counterpoint to Agile, existed. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the question that is lacking. The "model" adjective is shorthand and synonymous with approach. Feel free to correct the term or make adjustments, but the tags of shame you've place are childish. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This definately exists, it's a recommended product development process by the FDA in linked from Poisonadder1 (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)