Talk:Design management/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links cleanup

Made another round at cleaning up and organizing the external links. There were still a lot of non-English sites, weblogs, and other promotional sites that appeared to violate WP:SPAM and WP:EL. It's always difficult to draw the line on what types of links are deemed appropriate. Obviously, we're not going to list every organization/institution. --Ronz 19:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the link list again. Links to websites with design or innovation are not relevant (they should be in the article/portal about design), the linked website should contain information about design management. Wiki4des (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Undo of some relevant revisions done by User "Mikkalai"

a) Added the section on design management versus design leadership back again since this is a very critical distinction between highly relevant concepts discussed controversely across the design management community these days.

b) Added the link to the Design Management Blog again based on my arguments explained in December 2006 above

Rbeuker 20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is of low quality

The opening paragraph has a Gunning Fog index of 21.25. Since Wikipedia is intended to address general audiences, I hope that anyone who considers themselves an expert in design management will re-write this paragraph so that those who are not already management consultants can understand it. As it stands, it's pretty hopeless. --gilgongo (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Simplified opening paragraph to a Gunning Fog index of 16.78 84.46.36.183 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Design management/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Please fix disamb links: Brunton and Farr. No bad links.

fixed Wiki4des (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the relationship between this article and Design management in organization? Should the article be listed in a hatnote or a See Also section?

proposed Design management in organization for deletion Wiki4des (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

article Design management in organization deleted on January 23rd Wiki4des (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is far from clear. Article should be rewritten completely.

   done Wiki4des (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

   proposed new article structure: User:Wiki4des Wiki4des (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

   Delete "has become a relevant discipline around the world during the last decade. It" in first sentence.

   deleted Wiki4des (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   "from the discovery phase (fuzzy front-end)" - unacceptable parenthetical. How can you equate the two terms?

   deleted Wiki4des (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   "phrased the term" -> "coined the term" or "invented the term"

   done Wiki4des (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   In footnotes, spell out "Design Management Institute" as the publisher instead of abbreviating DMI.

   done Wiki4des (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   Inappropriate use of lists and tables.

   changed Wiki4des (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   Section and subsection headings have inappropriately capitalized words - "Design management in Companies" and "Design Management Hierarchy"

   done Wiki4des (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Source for quote is http://www.dmi.org/dmi/html/aboutdmi/design_management.htm

   done Wiki4des (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   Fn 2 -only has month and year of retrieval. Should give full date of retrievals.

   done Wiki4des (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

   Fn 20 - naked url. Use {{cite web}}

   done Wiki4des (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   Add publisher to all cites

   done Wiki4des (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

   Fn 25 and 26 uses pp which means a range of pages, but only page 32 or 58 was given. Were all of these multiple references all really on the same page?

   done Wiki4des (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   Volume parameter should be just the volume number, not volume number a comma and the year.

   done Wiki4des (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   Need secondary sources independent of the design management movement and organizations such as Design Management Institute.

   done Wiki4des (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

   Block quotes should be integrated into the prose.

   done Wiki4des (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

   "applied in the company correlates" should be " applied in a company correlates" avoid improper use of the definite article.

   done Wiki4des (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   Lead paragraph needs to summarize the article.

   done Wiki4des (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

   " The Design Leadership Fellowship by the University of Oxford is founded." should be " The Design Leadership Fellowship at the University of Oxford is founded."

   done Wiki4des (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   enlarged coverage Wiki4des (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article presupposes the value of design management over other approaches.

   done Wiki4des (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Dm-definition.pdf probably needs an email to OTRS to document who owns the copyright and who is licensing it. Organization vs. individual?

   OTRS pending Wiki4des (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   OTRC permission received (Ticket#2011011610006807) Wiki4des (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

   File:Max Liebermann Porträt Peter Behrens.jpg - Max died on February 8, 1935, so the copyright expired in 2005 in some countries, 2035 in others.

   changed image to one without copyright issues Wiki4des (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   The caption for tactical design management photo is too long and wordy.

   shortened Wiki4des (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am sorry, but this article needs to be completely rewritten and does not meet the criteria. Racepacket (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   thanks, all changes have been made, completing article in next step (see to-do list) for second GA application Wiki4des (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick review

I'm glad that someone is working so hard on this article. Much improved!

I quickly skimmed it, removed some linkspam, and tagged two sections that were poorly sourced. I also noticed that some of the related articles that are incorporated as sections or otherwise heavily summarized (eg Design leadership, Design thinking, Architectural management, Innovation management) are rather poor articles themselves. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks Ronz, further improved Wiki4des (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Some additional comments

• Too long, takes forever to load. Can't this be shortened at all?
• Some over-referencing going on; I see "[12][13][14][15]", "[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]", "[58][59][60][61]", "[66][67][68][30][69][70]", "[84][85][86][87][88]", "[78][71][79][80][81][82]", "[65][71][72][73][74]". etc. Please try to keep it to three or fewer refs per fact; if you have six refs backing up six facts, don't put all six refs at the end of one paragraph, distribute them after each fact.
• Needs a copyedit. WP:GOCE may be able to help.
• Lots of unreferenced or poorly referenced sections. "Design", "Management", "Managing product aesthetics and corporate design (early contributions)", "Managing design systematically (1960s–1970s)", "Managing design as a strategic asset (1980s–1990s)", "Managing design for innovation (2000s–2010s)", "Managing design in politics (till 2000s)", "Design management in education (till 2000s)", "Current developments", "Service design management", "Business design management", "Design management hierarchy", "Design management in education", etc. Some have no refs whatsoever, while others have refs for maybe one or two paragraphs but not the other paragraphs.
• Remove all external links that are in the prose (e.g., "D-schools 2009").

I don't think this is quite ready for GA yet, but I'm not going to do a proper review due to my life being too busy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

reduced over-referencing and removed all external links in prose Wiki4des (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Design management/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC) I'm going to be brave and take on this article. Due to its length & summary nature, complexity, and lots of issues before I expect the review to take a few days. Other editors are welcome to chip in with comments - none is too big nor small.

I can immediately see tautology in the lead: design management consists of using design management techniques, who would have thought! What about "design management uses project management and supply chain techniques to control a creative process" (Not that good, but you see the point)

thanks Ktlynch for taking this up. Changed the Tautology in the lead into: "Design management is a business discipline which is focused on a company's design resources and activities. It uses project management, design, strategy and supply chain techniques to control a creative process, supports a culture of creativity and build a structure and organisation for design." Wiki4des (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of good work and proper academic research has gone into this article, something that is too often all too lacking, even at GA level. However, while editors clearly have a good level of English, writing at this level might be a bit too far. There are repeated mistakes in basic conjugation, especially, but not limited to, single/plural agreement. There's also a fair amount of redundant language. In other areas embedded lists are used incorrectly, such as listing the sub-sections of a section (this is what the table of contents is for). Have a look at WP:EMBED. Another aspect which strains the eye is the heavier than usual use of bold, underline and italics, which wikipedia articles normally use lightly.There are specific instances these are called for, such as the title of a publication. All that said, there is a lot of scholarly information here, it just needs to be presented a little better. I'll try and do some more copy-editing and close the review soon. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ktlynch, are you still reviewing the article? You mentioned the following improvements

• basic conjugation, especially, but not limited to, single/plural agreement

can you be more precise in which sections? I can not find it

• fair amount of redundant language

can you be more precise in which sections? I can not find it

• embedded lists are used incorrectly, such as listing the sub-sections of a section

this has been changed in the meantime

• use of bold, underline and italics

this has been changed in the meantime

• any other improvements?

copied this comments into the GA review summary below Wiki4des (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

84.46.73.166 (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ktlynch, to better understand why the article passed/failed and where to improve if needed, can we use the review tool?

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   (a) recommendation: "pass" article is clear, understandable and well written, after it was rewritten in the previous GA review 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

   (b) recommendation: "tentative" article needs some improvements on MoS (see comments above) 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

   further applied MoS, taking Ktlynch comments on plural/singulat agreement and redundant language into account. Can not see major improvements on MoS, please advise if you see it differently Wiki4des (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   (a) recommendation: "to be checked" enough references? 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

   fair amount of references available Wiki4des (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

   (b) recommendation: "pass" article uses well-known and reliable sources, all sources have been checked. Not all sources are styled with the citation template, this could be improved, however not compulsory for GA 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

   (c) marked as: "pass" based on previous GA review 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   (a) recommendation: "pass", article covers major topics in design management, following the discussion in the design management community 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

   (b) recommendation: "pass", article has clear structure and does not address unimportant aspects of the subject 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   recommendation: "pass", article is not presupposing the value of design management anymore, but adresses the relation to other disciplines, furthermore no conflict of interest with other articles 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   marked as: "pass" based on previous GA review 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   (a) recommendation: "pass", images are checked & have fair use rationales after changes in previous GA review 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

   (b) recommendation: "pass", images have suitable captions 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   recommendation: "tentative" article still needs improvements on MoS 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

   Ktlynch, do you see any further issues that have to be solved before promoting it to GA level? I improved the article by applying MoS and I think all criteria's are addressed accordingly Wiki4des (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

84.46.73.166 (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This review is currently on the report as the oldest nomination. The review has now been open for almost two full months. Although WP:There is no deadline, I'd like to see it wrapped up before long, if that is reasonably possible. If you need help, please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll find some time to review this article, note any issues, and make a final decision so this review can be wrapped up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my neglience, I have been busy off line.

I am unsure about the article still, but see that important improvements have been made since my first review particularly in the area of copyediting. The addition of images adds much to break up the text. I've also noted that the article appears to be a translation from German Wikipedia, this should probably be noted on the talk page with the apropriate template. The article's tone and POV have improved with the style and it is now less very pro design management. The "extended definition" section could have half of its content copied over to wikitionary, and the rest combined into a sort of overview, particularly the "design" and "management" sub-sections. I am also most eager to hear the opinions of other editors before closing the review, which should be done asap. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The German and English version of this article have been developed simultaneously over the last five and a half years. During this time the English version was (and still is) in the lead and currently I am lagging behind with the German version. In order to respond to your request, I added a "this article is translated"-template in the talk page of the German Wikipedia and a notice-template on this talk page to indicate that there is a direct translation in another language available. Wiki4des (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ktlynch, I reduced the amount of text in the extended definition and restructured it for better readability, the deleted parts are covered in the design article or in wictionary. Additionally I added some references. Best, Wiki4des (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No problems with image licenses, dablinks or Els. There is enough academic content to make it reliable, but it still reads a little like a translated college essay. More work copyediting to trim some rotundity would be nice, but it is clear enough and comprehensive enough to merit Good article status. Well done to the nominator who has put lots of work into this article, keep it up! Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ktlynch, thanks a lot for your time in reviewing the article and for the appreciation. I will further improve the article in terms of copyediting. Best, Wiki4des (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Congrulations on the fruit of your labours, and the best of luck with the improvements. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Article improvements

The article can be further improved in terms of copy-editing, in order to make it smoother to read. Wiki4des (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Especially the section "Value for business" needs to be simplified and / or rewritten and extended Wiki4des (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

the section "Different types" also needs some improvements Wiki4des (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Complete article has been spell-checked. Wiki4des (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Great work! --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks Ronz. Wiki4des (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Complete article has been copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors in a group effort Wiki4des (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1