User:Nickmalik/sandbox

Coordinating updates to pages dealing with Enterprise Architecture
Since the field of EA is so small, and the number of editors is so small, I've decided not to attempt to create a WikiProject for the effort of modifying the pages for Enterprise Architecture. Instead, we will use this page for coordination at this point. If you want to add a comment to deal with one of the noted pages, please do.

Goals of the effort:
 * To ensure that the pages dealing with Enterprise Architecture are well written, follow Wikipedia style guidelines, and rely on reliable third party sources for the material
 * To ensure that the ideas expressed in the EA pages are up to date with changes in the field (post ~2005)
 * To provide a clear and consistent voice that reflects a high quality bar for describing the field of EA to non-practitioners avoiding technical jargon

Ideas that we want to ensure are reliably included and sourced
 * EA as a process, not a thing
 * EA as a business activity that includes, but is not limited to, Information Technology
 * EA as distinct from, but inclusive of, the domains of EA

Collaborators

Priorities of the pages to modify
This section will discuss the pages that we will focus on in the first pass of cleanup for the Enterprise Architecture project. Specific Domains Specific Roles
 * Enterprise Architecture
 * Data or Information Architecture
 * Business Architecture
 * Enterprise Architecture Management
 * Solutions Architecture
 * Enterprise Architect
 * Business Architect
 * Software Architect
 * Solutions Architect
 * Systems Architect

Pages included in this effort
Books included in this effort
 * Book:Enterprise_Architecture

Stuff that we have dropped from scope in the table below

Possible attributes
 * Name of page
 * Proximity to EA
 * 0 - the Enterprise Architecture article itself
 * 1 - topics directly relevant to Enterprise Architecture
 * 2 - topics directly relevant to level 1 topics
 * 3 - recursive, yada, yada, yada and all that


 * Score for sourcing and references
 * Low - Many unreferenced claims or content with no source
 * Medium - Most claims are referenced, but some of the references are not good
 * High - All references are reputable verifiable third-party sources


 * Score for writing Quality / Clarity
 * Low - Lots of jargon, difficult to follow, grammar issues
 * Medium - Readable but clunky, seems to be taken out of context
 * High - Smooth clear and elegant, formal writing at its best


 * Comments
 * Write anything that would help other editors to know if there is work to be done on that page