Content deleted Content added
→Time: response |
No edit summary |
||
Line 41:
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.40.253.127|92.40.253.127]] ([[User talk:92.40.253.127|talk]]) 14:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: A reference to your statement would be needed, but it seems to contradict itself. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 15:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
== The V-Model "in its simple and commonly understood form" ==
Walter - you removed three phrases in successive criticisms of the V-Model; "in its simple and commonly understood form", "in its most commonly understood form" and "in that simple form". There was a specific reason for those phrases. As the last criticism says, there is no clear and agreed definition of the V-Model. A defender of the V-Model might object to the criticisms on the grounds that the V-Model, as they understand it, is really more sophisticated, complex and effective than the criticisms assume. The trouble is that very many people, especially novices and project managers, do have that naive understanding of the V-Model "in its simple and commonly understood form", and can get into considerable trouble trying to make it work.
I can see why you removed the phrases. In any sound model (i.e. one that is coherent and well defined) the phrases would be redundant. However, the point is that the V-Model does have multiple variants, some with only subtle differences and others with massive differences. This makes discussion and criticism very difficult. Perhaps the final criticism should be the first in the list, to set the scene. I do think the three phrases you removed should be restored, to avoid confusion.
[[User:Freddie Threepwood|Freddie Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Freddie Threepwood|talk]]) 11:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
| |||