Talk:Waterfall model/to do


 * Remove pejorative, sneering tone of the whole article!
 * Format
 * Maybe change the arguments against from a bulleted list to paragraphs?
 * Remove the arguments for BDUF? It has its own page now...
 * Wikification
 * Needs more links
 * Maybe one or two more images
 * sashimi model?
 * one of the other modified waterfall models?
 * More peer review to make sure that all objections on bias and accuracy grounds are covered
 * There are still accusations that the article is biased against waterfall - review from a supporter would be great
 * Further clarify that there's a difference between the straw man model of Royces paper and the waterfall model in actual practice
 * Copyedit (spelling, grammar, writing style)
 * Removal of weasel words (many people, some people, allege, claim, sneer quotes (e.g. "pure", "flawed", "wrong"))
 * Referencing! Especially on advantages / disadvantages / criticisms / users.
 * Change the example from Wikipedia to something else (no self reference)
 * Expand the modified waterfall models section: "other" probably needs to be split into "waterfall w/ subprojects" and "waterfall w/ risk reduction"
 * Either provide references to substantial actual use of the 'non iterative' waterfall model OR adjust the article to reflect the fact that true waterfall has never been more than a straw-man argument used in the advocation of new methodologies.
 * Fix resources: Resource under link [16] is not working anymore. Maybe using this resource was not smart? I couldn't find anything simillar.