Talk:Stages of growth model/Archive 1

Archive 1

The stylistics

At the invitation of The Prokonsul, I had a look here. I see issues:

1. with the lead (per Military sociology)
2. with lack of context in the lead for those unfamiliar with the subject; it would earn a {{context}} tag from me, in normal use.
3. with insufficient links out, which would put it on the Dead-end or Orphaned pages, & earn a {{deadend}} &/or {{orphaned}} tag. Test it at "What links here". (I confess, I don't know the criteria for "deadend", 'cause i've seen stubs tagged that would be nothing but linkfarms if more were added.)
4. with lack of footnotes (a perennial complaint here; it'd be tagged for "lacking inline citations")

I do see better headers than military sociology, a good sign. It's on its way to a good page, but at a glance, it still needs a lot of work. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:00 & 19:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional review avenue

You may want to consider Wikipedia:Peer review to attract more reviewers.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea!

NurseAbby (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the nomination is not complete (Follow this link to complete a request for this article to be peer reviewed...). Once you do so, please move the template to the top of the articles, where the templates are customarily listed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to Group 1

First a question, Andrew-did you put the article up for good article nom. yet?

Hey guys, as you can see, I added our article to the peer review site so hopefully some more seasoned Wikipedia editors will stop by and offer suggestions. I just got done fixing some minor grammer/spelling issues with our article and I think it's looking pretty good...however, I doubt we will pass the good article nomination because we arn't exactly on par with the wikipedia article guidelines. I am suggesting that after we get a respone from the nomination team we regroup at that point and delegate who needs to do what before next Monday. Until then, maybe we can all read up on the general good/featured article criteria to find out just what we are lacking? Let me know what you guys think :)

                            NurseAbby (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical Summary

Nolan's Stages of Growth model provides one of the earliest known theoretical models to assist in understanding how computing systems (the current idiom is the term "IT", for "Information Technology") develop within an organization.

Applying the model does not mean that the specific organization must start from Stage I - contrary to what was believed during the 1980s. Since then, IT has become ubiquitous and in many cases essential for enabling core business processes. Thus, some form of a computer system is likely to be found in almost any organization being studied - at least in developed or developing economies.

While the model may be applied to the whole organization, it may work better if used as a tool to analyze which stage of growth the organization is currently at - e.g., such as business units, or functional areas - in terms of one of the six growth stages.

Today, the model is mostly used when there is a desired to obtain a better understanding of the existing stage (i.e., from Stages I to VI) of an organization. To use as a starting point for (say) management control, or further improvement, or as a guideline for probable growth of (parts of) IT systems.

Confused

Why was this removed from the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.195.82 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it was unreferenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Automated review

You may find the below suggestions helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,

Simultaneous reviews

Hello. I just posted to your Peer Review page, and I'd like to point out that it's against the rules to be a GA nominee and have an active Peer Review at the same time. I'd recommend canceling the GA review... by my estimation it's not yet near that level, anyway. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Failed GAN

I have failed this article as a GA candidate because it fails multiple criteria. A good start to improving the article would be to address the points raised at the peer review. The article is not broad enough in its coverage (two sections have expansion needed tags). It also has a {{fact}} and a {{who}} tag that needs addressing; the lead is much too short (it should summarise the article), and the lists of key points under each stage need to be converted into prose, during this process more information could be added. Good luck to the editors who want to improve the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nev1, please know that I, one who Peer Reviewed this article, changed the article dramatically just a few hours ago. Perhaps you should check the older version to make sure that the GA fail was not because of anything I did very recently (and without the blessing of the primary editors). I don't necessarily think that I, with my drastic edits, improved the article much; but rather made it more clear what needs to be done. All of that said, as I mentioned above, I don't think this article is near GA quality yet. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As far I can see, Rmrfstar, the edits you made did improve the article and it certainly isn't your fault that the article didn't pass GA. The reorganisation of material you made started to address some of the areas that were missing and expanding the breadth of the article, however neither version of the article satisfy the GA criteria. For instance, according to WP:MOS "do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs". It's nothing personal, I just think the article was nominated prematurely. Nev1 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we remove the key point lists that follow each of the stage's descriptions? I want to verify that this is what you are referencing before I go ahead and remove them. Thanks for all your feedback! NurseAbby (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm referring to, remove them but replace them with prose. Nev1 (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Article title

Does the term "stages of growth model" refer only to Nolan's "stages of growth model"? Or should this article's title have the name "Nolan" in it? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

End of assignment: summary

I want to thank all editors who have contributed to this article, either by editing it or by reviewing it and offering help on this talk page. While the article has fallen short of the Good Article criteria, it has been obviously significantly improved, moving from stub/start class to solid C or even B class. Compare: before, after, diffs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"DYK?"?

Hasn't this article been around since 2005? Isn't "DYK?" for new articles? I really appreciate the work that is being done on this article; but I would like to ask that its editors observe Wikipedia policy and not nominate it on indiscriminate pages for inappropriate processes (e.g. PR, GAC, DYK). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree this is somewhat strange. I believe User:Michael Hardy made the change. Also he changed the title of the article which I'm not sure is correct. I believe common usage is Stages of growth model without the hyphens --Patrick (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DYKs are also for significantly expanded article, for which this one qualifies. As for the name, I agree - I see no reasons for the hyphens (stages-of-growth-why?). The PR and GAC were quite appropriate, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I moved back the page. --Patrick (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My mistake: the DYK? template does not mention "recently expanded", as WP:DYK does. I have moved to get this inconsistency resollved. -- Rmrfstar (talk)

In case anyone else still cares, the policy is that an article must be expanded at least five-fold in five days to be a DYK?. If you're still reading this post, see Wikipedia:DYK#Selection_criteria. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)