Talk:Design management/GA2

GA Review
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)

84.46.73.166 (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)


 * 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)