Talk:Story-driven modeling
![]() | Computer science Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
Hello, there was an article on Story-driven modelling (with two l) which is the british spelling. The modeling technique it is about uses the american spelling Story-driven modeling with one l. Thus I have created a new article and copied the old content and changed the old article to become a redirection to the new article. Is this OK?
By the way: I should flag a conflict of interest. I have been involved in the development of the Story-Driven modeling approach. Its not just me, but a bunch of people involved. Its the result of 15 years of scientific work in the area of software engineering with about 100 people involved. I stepped on the articles on agile modeling and object-oriented modeling and felt that an article on Story-driven modeling is missing and I felt that I am the best fit for writing it.
I tried to be as neutral as I could.
Shall I try to find some independent co-authors to review / rewrite the article?
- People will review it eventually. I'm not familiar with this methodology although I'm familiar with OO methods and agile quite a bit. I don't mean that I'm challenging this. To start with though I'm going to change the first sentence. Saying it's an "improvement to object oriented methodologies" is too general and too grandiose a statement, it may be better than OO for certain kinds of development but to just say it's and improvemnet, especially since it's hardly a common term in IT and hasn't supplanted things like RUP for most development, is claiming too much and not neutral I think. MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- This sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the improvement. 12 January 2014 Azuendorf
- Now that I've looked at the article a bit more I take issue with the comparison to "Object modeling techniques" I changed the first sentences to be less POV, to not say that story modeling is an improvement to OO but even as it stands now I don't agree with it. The defacto standard for OO modeling is the Rational Unified Process which absolutely does include use cases so the distinction in this article is wrong IMO. MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This Just Looks like Use Cases to me
Isn't this just another name for Use Case modeling? If so it should be merged with this article: Use-case analysis MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)