Talk:Kessel Run

Non-Comment by Reviewer
See my comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=1175571266&oldid=1175571049. The COI by the submitter was trivial, and I would have accepted this draft if I had known about the COI. No harm, no foul. Resume the basketball game. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources
The vast majority of the sources are Pentagon-affiliated or state-funded media. That might be ok if they're only used for trivial facts. Was there any check whether reliable third party sources support the central claims of the article?

For example, section 0 states the subject "essentially introduced modern agile software development practices to the United States Department of Defense". What's the source for that? The only third party source I see in the vicinity of such claims in the body is a 2018 article which barely mentions agile, in a single paragraph: «the team chose a hashtag for its project that is a nod to both agile software development, and the fact that Kessel Run’s culture is more startup than strictly military: #agileAF». Nemo 07:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the lede for now. Nemo 07:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was also worried about whether the sources like Defense News and Federal Computer Week are "Pentagon-affiliated or state-funded media" myself, when I was writing the thing, but now I don't think they are. From reading our articles about them, they're independent companies that focus on covering the Defense Department or the US Government as their topic. "The military" or "the government" are big enough topics to support independent magazines that specialize in covering them, like cars, or fashion, or video games, or rock music. They are not affiliated with, or paid by, the Air Force or Army, any more than Car and Driver is affiliated with or paid by Ford or Chrysler. There are certainly actual (primary) military sources here, but these are used appropriately, for WP:ABOUTSELF things, not for anything that is controversial, and they are not the majority of citations. The two most cited sources, by far, are Fast Company and Rough Translation which aren't even specializing in military or government.
 * The content you deleted from the lede specifically was: "It was founded in 2017 by the Defense Innovation Unit in response to the need to modernize legacy Air Force software that was noticeably hampering operations, and essentially introduced modern agile software development practices to the United States Department of Defense. It has won multiple awards and inspired multiple similar agile "software factories" in the Air Force and other agencies of the Defense Department." This content is backed throughout the article, per WP:MOSLEADCITE. That's what the lede is supposed to be, a summary of the article. I admit I thought it should not be cited due to WP:MOSLEADCITE, being an obvious summary of the content cited in the body, so sticking a lot of citations in would not be necessary. However, as you have demonstrated they are necessary, I would appreciate if you restore it with these references:
 * It was founded in 2017 by the Defense Innovation Unit in response to the need to modernize legacy Air Force software that was noticeably hampering operations,  and essentially introduced modern agile software development practices to the United States Department of Defense.  It has won multiple awards  and inspired multiple similar agile "software factories" in the Air Force and other agencies of the Defense Department.
 * If you change your mind and agree some of these are actually obviously cited lower in the body, so don't need the additional citations here, I would be only too happy. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear I wasn't suggesting to add more references to the lede, but rather to find better sources for the claims mentioned in the lede. I've not reviewed the proposed edit in detail but it seems suitable for the article body. Then after a while such claims can also be mentioned in the lede once settled a bit.
 * If I understand correctly, the Federal Computer Week and United States Naval Institute articles would become the main references for the claims about agile practices. It seems an improvement, but even better would be to find some sources from someone in the agile community who's not from a military background. Nemo 15:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All that is already in the article body. Here is the table of contents: Background - about the origin/need for Kessel Run. AgileAF - about the agile software practices that Kessel Run introduced to the Air Force. Reactions - about how KR was received. Software Factories - about the other groups it directly inspired. Applications - listing what KR made. The lede summarizes that.
 * Specifically the lede content you deleted is my best effort to summarize each of those sections in a sentence or less:
 * by the Defense Innovation Unit in response to the need to modernize legacy Air Force software that was noticeably hampering operations - Background section
 * and essentially introduced modern agile software development practices to the United States Department of Defense. -AgileAF section
 * It has won multiple awards - Reception section
 * and inspired multiple similar agile "software factories" in the Air Force and other agencies of the Defense Department - Software Factories section.
 * If you have a better way to summarize those sections in the lede, please say, I'm not claiming to be the best summarizer in the world. However, until you have such a better suggestion, please do restore your deletions, as otherwise the lede isn't summarizing the article at all. --GRuban (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ User:Gog the Mild restored the lede section in December, and it hasn't been reverted since, so I'm assuming this part is done. Gog says it actually needs to be expanded even more, and I hope to get to that eventually. --GRuban (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have a better way to summarize those sections in the lede, please say, I'm not claiming to be the best summarizer in the world. However, until you have such a better suggestion, please do restore your deletions, as otherwise the lede isn't summarizing the article at all. --GRuban (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ User:Gog the Mild restored the lede section in December, and it hasn't been reverted since, so I'm assuming this part is done. Gog says it actually needs to be expanded even more, and I hope to get to that eventually. --GRuban (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

COI tag
I see you added a COI tag (and another, but that one is more complex). I think if you check, you will see that I have not edited the article since it moved to main space by an uninvolved reviewer, so the COI tag should be removed. The COI tag is for main space COI edits that have not been approved by an uninvolved reviewer, and there have not been any of those.

The other tag will be more complex (not least because I can't edit the article in mainspace myself!) but I will also try to get to that. Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @GRuban: That's not at all how I read Template:COI. I don't think it really matters what namespace the text was in when the COI edits were made, it's clear to me they are problematic, so that's why I tagged it. My recommendation would be for you to just work on some other article and leave this to people without a COI entirely. Legoktm (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So the template is not actually the policy or guideline. That one is Conflict of Interest which says (under WP:COIEDIT) "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" which is what I did. That's why the namespace matters: the COI editor creates the article in Draft, then an uninvolved reviewer pushes it to Main space. I hope you will agree that it would be perverse if an article created and approved following the rules should still bear the scarlet letter of a derogatory template. Certainly the reviewers of my other 4 COI articles, including an administrator who took credit for co-creating the WP:COI guideline, and the arbitrator and Wikipedian of the year who approved the first one, thought as much when they approved them. User:GRuban/COI details this, that is the link that I put in the review and had hoped people would read. Here, let me cut out the middle man ... er link ..., and let you read the words of Sarah/Slim Virgin herself, WP:COI co-creator, specifically about not having the COI template on the page: Talk:Rebecca Moore (scientist). --GRuban (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My point, by adding the template, is that I read the article and considered it to have "standard COI problems" (as stated above). With that in mind, I think the template is appropriate, in addition to the POV one. If some other (non-COI) editor disagrees with me, they're free to remove it and explain why. I'm fully aware that someone has reviewed the article and moved it to mainspace, but that doesn't fix what I see as COI issues, nor of course should it be a "scarlet letter" - once the issues are resolved, it can and should be removed. Legoktm (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hurrah! Thank you so much for responding, I was getting worried. OK, I am sure that we can come to a satisfactory compromise. Just to confirm, before I make specific proposals, though, your issues are
 * the description of "agile software development" as "modern",
 * "tanker whiteboard" together
 * the use of the "agileAF" tag as a section header
 * some language around "agileAF" that you haven't quite specified, but see as unencyclopedic
 * Or are there other specific things that need resolution? --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, those are just specific issues I pointed out to demonstrate my overall point that this article needs a full run through by someone who, I will repeat for the third and final time, does not have a COI with the subject. I understand and sympathize on why you want to improve it, but really, I fundamentally don't think it'll make the article better in the long run. I'm not interested in the subject, I just picked it up for DYK review since it was one of the oldest outstanding ones. Legoktm (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Legoktm, User:GRuban - My opinion is, first, that User:GRuban should not make any more edits to the article, but, second, that the COI tag should be removed unless anyone sees any non-neutral language, in which case they can edit the non-neutral language. The article was reviewed by a neutral uninvolved reviewer on 15 September 2023, me, when I said that I would have accepted the article if it had been properly tagged.  Tagging disputes are mostly stupid.  What should be discussed is not whether an article should be tagged, but whether the article should be (deleted or draftified or) improved.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Quetstar removed the COI/POV tags, probably in response to my query at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Thank you very much Robert McClenon and Quetstar! --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how the documentation for COI could be any clearer; it includes this (highlighting in original):

"Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article . If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning."

Legoktm: Please bear that in mind in the future. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Pigsonthewing, I provided my feedback on the talk page at the same time I tagged the article, it's above in the DYK nomination discussion. Legoktm (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I took a look. I don't see anything that merits a COI or neutrality tag. But IMO it does have a bit of a subtle issue. It's written more like "The Story of Kessel Run and why it's needed" rather than a typical enclyclopedic article. Later on (after the discussion is over) I'd be happy to go through it if desired and if you ping me. North8000 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is friendly to the subject. If we had factually opposing points of view, how the article reads might be mitigated. Books like this (not even used here) read the same way. It's not as if the artcile is deliberately slanted.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  20:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that the issue is minor. And I agree that it is not deliberately slanted and so it doubly minor. I do think that tweaking it is a Wikipedia editing question. Once the bigger tag discussion on this is finally settled, I'd be happy to try to tweak it if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reread the original complaint. I still plan to review it.   scope_creep Talk  19:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Ad
This is not an encyclopedic article; it is written in the same style as all promotional content.

"essentially introduced modern agile software development practices to the United States Department of Defense." If that is true they should be executed as traitors. But it is not.

"It has won multiple awards" I have also won multiple awards. Who cares? Bragging is not the purpose of the WP:LEAD section.

"inspired multiple similar agile "software factories" in the Air Force and other agencies of the Defense Department. " yet more unsourced promotional nonsense. This success-story was created and sold to a few politicians (who don't know how to type) and the media (who is too lazy/underpaid to factcheck) for commercial and political purposes.

The "Background" section is just a long story to dunk on the potential competition. Information about how much they suck is offtopic here and should be moved to their articles. Perhaps we could leave a quick mention here about how dire the situation was, but this is clearly excessive.

The "AgileAF" story is just an ad. The source "Fast Company" is the kind of company you can get to publish anything if you are rich.

The "Software factories" section is mostly unrelated to the topic of the article. The vague claim that they were inspired by KR is not enough to make "other software dev teams exist" relevant to this article. Having to redefine words to claim this as a win is pretty weak.

"the AF, they assure, stands for Air Force" Silence, brand.

No programmer in the western world in 2016 was unaware of Agile. By then, Agile wasn't a new thing (the manifesto was 15+ years old and the roots date back to the 50s/60s).

"small conference rooms continued the theme by being named after planets in the Star Wars universe" Keep including these little unnecessary details to make a brand likable. Marketing 101.

I am bored now, but the rest of the article is far from perfect as well. It should be returned to draft status. Wikipedia articles should be written in an encyclopedic style. This is propaganda. Polygnotus (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead says:

"...essentially introduced modern agile software development practices to the United States Department of Defense."

the agileAF section says:

"The Pivotal team introduced modern software techniques such as agile software development and extreme programming, where each Pivotal coder would pair program with an Air Force developer."

These sentences have completely different meanings ("The DoD had never heard of agile" vs "The project had not used agile and extreme programming before, and Pivotal introduced those techniques to it"). The source seems to support neither of those claims. Instead it says:

" With Pivotal on board, four of the Air Force coders were paired with four Pivots, as dictated by the company’s adherence to a software development methodology known as Extreme Programming."

Polygnotus (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The claim: "The Navy was inspired by Kessel Run to stand up its first software factory, The Forge, in Riverdale, Maryland, in March 2021." also does not appear to be supported by at least one of the sources. Polygnotus (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Even serious failure that could result in lost lives is presented as a victory:

"Slapshot, the air mission flow organizer part of KRADOS, was also used for the Operation Allies Refuge Afghan evacuation along with C2IMERA.[65][66] At that time, KRADOS had known issues with scaling; it couldn't handle many simultaneous operations, which was exactly what it was being asked to do. On August 24, 2021, at 2 am Boston time, the Slapshot server crashed. Over the next 12 hours, Kessel Run developers restarted servers, shifted United States Central Command resources to improve performance, fixed database errors, and added new features to improve load times, so the evacuation on the other side of the world could continue.[67] "

KRADOS is the Kessel Run All-Domain Operations Suite.

Painting them as heroes for trying to hotfix a bad system they created is kinda weird.

Polygnotus (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Did the DoD know about Agile before Kessel Run?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Polygnotus (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)