Wikipedia:Peer review/Design management/archive1

Design management
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article has potential for FA status and would like to further improve it. Comments on what is still needed to improve to bring it to a FA level are very welcome.
 * It was nominated as GA in June 2011.
 * It was completely copy-edited by a the Guild of Copy Editors (as a group effort) in August 2011.

Thanks, Wiki4des (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry it has taken so long to review this aqrticle and thanks for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A model article is sueful for ideas and examples to follow. I am not sure what a good model would be here, but note that there are several FAs in Category:FA-Class WikiProject Business articles which might give some ideas.
 * I think this article would have a difficult time passing FAC in its current state.
 * The lead does not follow WP:LEAD, which says that the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. The cdurrent lead feels more like an introduction to the topic than a summary. By the way, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
 * To make sure it is a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * There are quite a few unsourced statements, which would be a quick fail at FAC. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. If a paragraph has a ref early, then sentences following it without a ref, these need some sort of citation (ref) too. AAn example (one of many) of this is from the Notion of the term "design management" section: ''Although they did not use the term "design management", they stressed identical issues; while the design community discussed methodologies for design. Christopher Alexander's work played an important role in the development of the design methodology, where he devoted his attention to the problems of form and context; and focused on disassembling complex design challenges into constituent parts to approach a solution. His intention was to bring more rationalism and structure into the solving of design problems.
 * A few examples of other things that need refs follow (not a complete list). I also note that there are two citation needed tags.
 * The three part definitaion in the Extended definition section needs a ref.
 * Whole first paragraph of the Managing design systematically (1960s–1970s) section has no refs - I note that it includes a direct quotation - these ALWAYS need refs
 * Whole second pqaragraph of Politic (till 2000s) section on Nazis
 * References need to be formatted consistently and to provide all required information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed - many ofthe refs here with internet links do not have access dates. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * There are images which are illegible - both File:Business Model Canvas.png and File:Dm-definition.pdf cannot be read in the article. The latter image may be better if it were cropped to remove excess white space.
 * Article needs to follow WP:HEAD better for section headers - the general rule is to avoid repeating the name of the article in a section header (or header in a subheader) if at all possible. So the header Notion of the term "design management" could just be Notion of the term (the reader already knows what the article is about and what the term is)
 * Article needs to follow WP:ITALIC in its use of italic and bold - why are names in captions in bold face?
 * The prose is not up to a professional level of English, which is WP:WIAFA criterion 1a. This is the most difficult criterion for most articles to meet a FAC. I am not a business expert, and I felt this was written in business-speak, which made it more difficult to follow and comprehend.
 * The article is very list-y and these lists should converted to prose wherever possible (not all of them, but hopefully most)
 * Long quotes should be attributed and put into context - in the Defining quotes section, who are Peter Gorb and Jon Thackara (and why should their quotes be used to define the topic)? So if you say here that Gorb is a published author of important works in the field and is affiliated with various universities (as the article does later), that helps.
 * In general make sure to provide context to the reader - most readers will not know as much on the topic as the main editors do and so context is more needed and helpful for them
 * Speaking of Gorb, the article is often confusing or even apparently contradictory. For example In his Classification of Design (1976), Gorb divided design into three different classes. OK, so I figure we will next read what the three classes are. However, what follows is a list of four things with many examples after each  Design management operates in and across all three classes: product (e.g. industrial design, packaging design, service design), information (e.g. graphic design, branding, media design, web design), interaction (usability, human-computer interaction), and environment (e.g. retail design, exhibition design, interior design).[8] I am lost.
 * There are also places where the prose is just not grammatically correct, i.e. "proofing" (should be "proving" or better yet, "The following references prove this argument") in Design improves the performance of the innovation policy and of the communications policy of the firm. Following references are proofing this argument: ...
 * Avoid vague time terms like recent(ly) - these can become out of date and it is better to include actual years (since 2008, for example)
 * The header "Politics (since the 2010s)" to me makes no sense - I would think that the 2010s are the current decade, so we would need to wait until the 2020s to be "since the 2010s". If "after 2010" or in this decade are meant, then I find it odd that the first ref is from 1993 (17 years before 2010)
 * See also is generally for links not already in the article - see WP:See also
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)