Talk:Waterfall model/Archives/2014

Image

I can't draw at all, it would be nice if someone could whip up the coloured boxes in a slightly nicer form and replace Image:Waterfall_model.jpg. GeorgeBills 04:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• In the meantime, "maintenance" is mis-spelled ... :) Jim Huggins 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I created a replacement diagram: Image:Waterfall_model.png. I'll leave the 'reqimage' tag above for now, in case someone thinks this article needs more diagrams. PaulHoadley 03:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have thought so in almost the last year, so looks like it's all good. -Stellmach 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The image ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Waterfall_model.svg )currently show the phases overlapping. This should probably be changed so the are aligned at the ends of each box or so they have a bit of space between each to. This would make it clear that the phases do not overlap in the unmodified waterfall model. 62.107.105.61 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That image is in wikicommons, commons:File:Waterfall model.svg. There are two earlier versions there. Feel free to change it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disputed

Great article, one would almost start to believe there ever was such a thing as a watterfall model. Problem is, it does not exist, nor has any project aver used such a model. The whole waterfall model in the original article started its life as a strawman, and has seen many incarnations that have repeatedly been used again and again to attack older aging models. Models that one or two decades ago were advocated using the watterfall stwaman model are ironically today being attacked using the same strawman fallicy. I believe this artiocale should be deleted and replaced with a proper analysis of the decades old strawman falicy that the waterfall model represents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:4962:1:5604:A6FF:FEF1:6202 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide any reliable sources to support your opinion, then we should certainly add a discussion about this in a criticisms section, but the sources clearly show that it does exist and is not a straw man. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is that (AFAICS) all of the references in the article are either 'in contrast' mentions or are 'historic' analisis quoting these 'in contrast' papers. Development processes have always been itterative, even those that define phases have explicit or implicit feedback loops. AFAIK there are no documented examples of processes in practice using a true waterfall model where the phases are frozen once the next phase begins. The burdon of the proof should not be with me, but with the people claiming that the waterfall model has ever actualy been used as a real model in practice. I would thus sugest both adding a 'quotations needed' in the parts that claim that the model has actualy ever been used AND adding criticisms section mentioning the posibility of the model being nothing but a stwawman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:4962:1:5604:A6FF:FEF1:6202 (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to refer to Profesor Dischave who a few years back stated

"For those information technology professionals and other interested parties I encourage you to do some research. Look for the seminal work that introduces a “waterfall” methodology to the discipline. If you find it please share it with this community. I would like to read it, but in the meantime please read Winston Royce’s, “Managing the Development of Large Software Systems.”[i] I think you will find Royce does a nice job proving that the “Waterfall” systems development methodology is indeed a myth."

http://get.syr.edu/news_alt.aspx?recid=401

I don't think adding a 'criticisms section' is sufficient, but it might be a start. I maintain that there is no actual proof to be found that shows that a real development method ever existed that could truly be considered waterfall. From this I challenge the legitimacy of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.70.45.2 (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

Just added a lot of material, I'd like to make sure that it's all correct... GeorgeBills 14:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• I briefly scanned the article, and (IMHO) it's technically correct. I may tweak some stuff if I get some time, but the general sense of the article looks right. Jim Huggins 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if a link to Tarmo's blog counts as vanity link... Tarmo is a journalist for the biggest computers related magazine in Finland, but still... :/ I'm not very familiar with Wiki customs. --sigmundur —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.86.94.11 (talk • contribs) 26 June 2006.

• Blogs by notable authorities are generally acceptable, at least in the absence of a better citation. - Jmabel | Talk 17:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)