Talk:Software architecture/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs) 11:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I beginning review of this article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

First look

• There is a prominent cite error. The name "SAP2" is defined multiple times with different content.
• Multiple dead links need to be corrected:

• Ref 12. SARA Work Group (2002). "SARA Report". A WebCite archive is available
• Ref 23. Software Architecture Review and Assessment (SARA) Report. A WebCite archive is available
• Raw link in Software architecture erosion: "...and DCL (from Federal University of Minas Gerais)..."
• External link: Architectural Patterns

• Where did you obtain a time machine to get the book published in 2994? See Ref 31.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, no action requested: The first non-stub version of this article used British spelling, but the article has evolved to use American spelling. The switch in languages having evolved by consensus, I am asking for no changes. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious copyvio, but they copied us, not the other way around. Nothing to worry about. See the Software Architecture article on Physicswiki.net. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Contracted word in Design section: "There aren't rules or guidelines that fit all cases..." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

All issues listed under 'First look' have been resolved --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• "It is the set of structures needed to reason about the software system." Unclear pronoun antecedent. Try some sort of rewording such as "The structures are those needed to reason..."
• "the systems that controlled the space shuttle launch vehicle have the requirement of being very fast, and very reliable, in principle." What is the phrase "in principle" supposed to mean? Also, excess comma. Try something like "the systems that controlled the space shuttle launch vehicle had the requirement of being very fast and very reliable."
• "Similarly, multiple redundant independently produced copies..." Words such as "Furthermore" or "In addition" would work better than "Similarly."
• "i.e., which are used to 'house' the more changeable elements of the program" Using scare quotes around "house" does not make the usage any clearer. Also, the antecedent of "which" is not quite clear. Try "i.e., structural choices which constitute a framework for the more changeable elements of the program" or some other such rewording.
• "stakeholders" Reader following wikilink has to wade through a considerable amount of irrelevant material. Try drilling down to the relevant section, i.e. stakeholders

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

All issues listed under 'Lede' have been resolved. --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Scope

• The design of the presentation in this section, which contrasts summarized views of different sources, necessitates rigorous accuracy of the summaries of the cited sources with no inadvertent WP:OR which could result in misrepresentation of the sources.

• "Overall, macroscopic system structure;[5] this refers to architecture as a higher level abstraction of a software system that consists of high-level components and connectors, as opposed to implementation details." I do not see how the expression "high-level components and connectors" comes from a reading of the indicated reference.

• Fix Adapted the text to remain closer to the primary study: "this refers to architecture as a higher level abstraction of a software system that consists of a collection of computational components together with connectors that describe the interaction between these components." --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• "The important stuff—whatever that is;[6] this refers to the fact that software architects should concern themselves with those decisions that have high impact on the system and its stakeholders—which may include apparently low-level details." This starts off with a direct quote from Fowler. However, where does Fowler state that architects should concern themselves with "apparently low-level details"? Please truncate after the dash.

• Fix as suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcdeboer (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• "That which is fundamental to understanding a system in its environment"[7]" Good paraphrase that does not misrepresent the ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 Website.
• "Things that people perceive as hard to change;[6] since designing the architecture takes place at the beginning of a software system's lifecycle, the architect should focus on decisions that "have to" be right the first time, since reversing such decisions may be impossible or prohibitively expensive." After comparing with the source, it appears to me that the part of this statement that begins, "...since reversing such decisions..." represents WP:OR. Please truncate.

• Fix I removed the second part of this statement, and replaced it with a text that remains closer to Fowler's line of thought (from the primary study) on overcoming irreversibility: "...should focus on decisions that "have to" be right the first time. Following this line of thought, architectural design issues may become non-architectural once their irreversibility can be overcome." --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• "A set of architectural design decisions;[8] software architecture should not be considered merely a set of models or structures, but should include the decisions that lead to these particular structures, and the rationale behind them. This insight has led to substantial research into software architecture knowledge management.[9]" Since the entire book is about software architecture knowledge management, I'm "sort of" OK with citing the entire book, but it would be better if you narrowed the citation to the introductory chapter of the book.

• I'll get back to this --Rcdeboer (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• "There is no sharp distinction between software architecture versus design and requirements engineering (see Related fields below). They are all part of a "chain of intentionality" from high-level intentions to low-level details.[10]" Please refine the citation. Do not cite an entire book in support of a single statement. The expression is found in chapter 2, page 18.

• Fix Refined both references to Fairbanks' book (coincidentally, both references trace to page 18). --Rcdeboer (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A different manner of presenting the material in this section would not have required me to be so picky. However, if you seek to contrast and compare different points of view, you must not misrepresent them.

A response is necessary. I will be placing the GA review on hold until somebody addresses the issues that I have raised so far. Due to the technical nature of this article, reviewing it properly requires a considerable commitment on my part, and I would like to see somebody address my concerns as I raise them. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Characteristics

• Reference 3 "Software Architecture In Practice, Third Edition. Boston: Addison-Wesley. pp. 21–24" is cited eight times in the article. Pages 21-24 comprise the Summary, For Further Reading, and Discussion questions of Chapter 1. Citation usages a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h all appear to be supported by pages in this book, but not in pages 21 through 24. Consider using Template:Rp or any of the other means of individual page citation.

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• "the established way...is by separating the concerns" Try "is to separate"

Fixed as suggested --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Quality-driven not supported by pages 21-24

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Recurring styles Citation?

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Conceptual integrity Citation?

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Motivation

• "Software architecture is an "intellectually graspable" abstraction of a complex system.[3]" Not supported by pages 21-24

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• "It supports early design decisions that impact a system's development, deployment, and maintenance life." Not supported by pages 21-24

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• "It facilitates communication with stakeholders, contributing to a system that better fulfills their needs" Not supported by pages 21-24

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Software architecture helps to reduce risks and chance of failure.[10](p18)" Not supported in page 18

Direct quote from p.18: "It is important to pay attention to software architecture because of its impact on your systems. When you choose it deliberately, you reduce your risks and chance of failure." --Rcdeboer (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. I missed that. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• "It enables cost reduction." Citation?

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

History

• "Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline" ISBN?

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay -- Family matters. I will try to finish the review quickly. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Architecture activities

• File:SoftwareArchitectureActivities.jpg is a very thinly disguised version of Figure 10 from Hofmeister et al. 2006 and as such constitutes plagiarism.
• Hofmeister et al. 2006 mentions software evolution, but does not support the assertion that it is a core activity. Please replace with appropriate reference.
• File:SoftwareArchitectureActivities.jpg shows three core activities, but the text describes four.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have nominated File:SoftwareArchitectureActivities.jpg for deletion. Please replace with a better figure.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• The file has been deleted; I'm working on a possible replacement. --Rcdeboer (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Query

It has been three weeks since the last edit here. Stigmatella aurantiaca, Rcdeboer, where does the review and its progress stand? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that neither nominator nor reviewer has edited Wikipedia since mid-November, and issues clearly still remain, I am going to allow one further week for the outstanding issues to be addressed (notably those in Architecture activities)—I'm putting the nomination on hold. If nothing is done in those seven days, the nomination will be closed. If progress is made over the next week, then we should probably find a new reviewer, since the review has not yet touched on the Software architecture topics or Related fields section. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I think you should go ahead and fail this. Issues don't seem to have been resolved, and both editors have not edited for over a month. -- numbermaniac (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Closing GA review as unsuccessful. The nominator should feel free to renominate this article once the remaining issues have been resolved. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)