Wikipedia:Peer review/Waterfall model/archive1

Waterfall model
I've just done a lot of work on this topic; I'd really like to make sure that it's all factually accurate. In addition, there has been some argument that the article is PoV (unfairly biased against the waterfall model), so I've tried to include the arguments of those few who argue for the waterfall model. GeorgeBills 14:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a well-developed, pretty solid page that seems to cover the topic nicely; I couldn't find any significant issues. If you take it for FA status, you may be criticized for the bulleted list approach of the Criticism section; those folks seem to prefer normal prose to bullets. &mdash; RJH 00:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)