Talk:Kessel Run

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legoktm (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 8 February 2024 (→‎COI tag: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by BlueMoonset talk 23:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been tagged with both COI and POV templates for over three weeks, and the issues raised here remain unaddressed. Closing nomination as unsuccessful.

(
)
Kessel Run logo
Kessel Run logo

Created by GRuban (talk). Self-nominated at 11:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kessel Run; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

I don't think this article is acceptable in its current form. There's far too much puffery (e.g. repeatedly describing agile as "modern") or pure jargon (e.g. they would just do the tanker whiteboard). Then there's a section titled "AgileAF" with the sentence The development team would later adopt the hashtag #AgileAF - the AF, they assure, stands for Air Force. - I don't see how that's encyclopedic writing at all. I could point out more but I don't think it's necessary.

I'll be honest that I had a tough time trying to figure out which sources were actually reliable sources, and which were outlets of the US government, and then some are "news sites" run by military contractors (e.g. GovDevSecOpsHub). Normally I would've marked this as needing work and provided a list of suggested improvements or needed fixes, but this is a COI article with standard COI problems. Legoktm (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: The source - FastCompany - uses the words modern. Sanders describes the kind of iteration inherent to modern software development as a fundamental change in the DoD’s approach to software acquisition ; That’s nothing more than best practices for modern software development, ; “The DoD violates pretty much every rule in modern product development,” Schmidt told U.S. Congress recently. Which parts of "They would just do the tanker whiteboard" is jargon? tanker? whiteboard? The terms are described in depth in the paragraphs above. The "agileAF" tag is a big deal, in multiple sources. "Not encyclopedic writing" is debatable; more important "brilliant prose" isn't a DYK criterion, this isn't a FA candidate. There are a number of primary sources, but only used for noncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF; most of the sources like Defense News and Federal Computer Week are independent, they just specialize in covering military and government like Car and Driver specializes in covering autos. The two most used sources by far are FastCompany and Rough Translation, which don't even specialize in covering military and government. --GRuban (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The FastCompany article doesn't describe agile as modern (n.b. agile is 20+ years old). "tanker whiteboard" together is jargon. You say that it's "described in depth in the paragraphs above", but it's the first use of the word "tanker" on the page.
"AgileAF" is basically a marketing hashtag/slogan. It's mentioned once in FastCompany and not at all in Rough Translation - it's not appropriate as a section header nor is the prose appropriate. Legoktm (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Non-Comment by Reviewer

See my comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=1175571266&oldid=1175571049 . The COI by the submitter was trivial, and I would have accepted this draft if I had known about the COI. No harm, no foul. Resume the basketball game. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

The vast majority of the sources are Pentagon-affiliated or state-funded media. That might be ok if they're only used for trivial facts. Was there any check whether reliable third party sources support the central claims of the article?

For example, section 0 states the subject "essentially introduced modern agile software development practices to the United States Department of Defense". What's the source for that? The only third party source I see in the vicinity of such claims in the body is a 2018 article which barely mentions agile, in a single paragraph: «the team chose a hashtag for its project that is a nod to both agile software development, and the fact that Kessel Run’s culture is more startup than strictly military: #agileAF». Nemo 07:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the lede for now. Nemo 07:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemo bis: I was also worried about whether the sources like Defense News and Federal Computer Week are "Pentagon-affiliated or state-funded media" myself, when I was writing the thing, but now I don't think they are. From reading our articles about them, they're independent companies that focus on covering the Defense Department or the US Government as their topic. "The military" or "the government" are big enough topics to support independent magazines that specialize in covering them, like cars, or fashion, or video games, or rock music. They are not affiliated with, or paid by, the Air Force or Army, any more than Car and Driver is affiliated with or paid by Ford or Chrysler. There are certainly actual (primary) military sources here, but these are used appropriately, for WP:ABOUTSELF things, not for anything that is controversial, and they are not the majority of citations. The two most cited sources, by far, are Fast Company and Rough Translation which aren't even specializing in military or government.
The content you deleted from the lede specifically was: "It was founded in 2017 by the Defense Innovation Unit in response to the need to modernize legacy Air Force software that was noticeably hampering operations, and essentially introduced modern agile software development practices to the United States Department of Defense. It has won multiple awards and inspired multiple similar agile "software factories" in the Air Force and other agencies of the Defense Department." This content is backed throughout the article, per WP:MOSLEADCITE. That's what the lede is supposed to be, a summary of the article. I admit I thought it should not be cited due to WP:MOSLEADCITE, being an obvious summary of the content cited in the body, so sticking a lot of citations in would not be necessary. However, as you have demonstrated they are necessary, I would appreciate if you restore it with these references:
::It was founded in 2017 by the [[Defense Innovation Unit]]<ref name="FastCompany"/><ref name="Rebels"/> in response to the need to modernize legacy Air Force software that was noticeably hampering operations,<ref name="FastCompany"/><ref name="Rebels"/> and essentially introduced modern [[agile software development]] practices to the [[United States Department of Defense]].<ref name="FastCompany"/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Kelman |first1=Steve |title=Agile at DOD -- going beyond sticky notes and standing meetings |url=https://fcw.com/blogs/lectern/2018/06/kelman-dod-agile.aspx |access-date=15 August 2023 |work=[[Federal Computer Week]] |date=June 18, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180709200706/https://fcw.com/blogs/lectern/2018/06/kelman-dod-agile.aspx |archive-date=9 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Williams |first1=Lauren C. |title=Air Force wants to make 'Kessel Run' standard in tech acquisition |url=https://www.nextgov.com/digital-government/2018/10/air-force-wants-to-make-kessel-run-standard-in-tech-acquisition/247429/ |access-date=9 August 2023 |work=[[Nextgov]] |date=3 October 2018 |language=en}}</ref> It has won multiple awards<ref>{{cite news |last1=Welsh |first1=Patty |title=Kessel Run receives top honors |url=https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1982993/kessel-run-receives-top-honors/ |access-date=16 August 2023 |publisher=[[Air Force Materiel Command]] |date=7 October 2019}} Also available as {{cite web |last1=Welsh |first1=Patty |title=Kessel Run receives top honors |url=https://www.hanscom.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1982540/kessel-run-receives-top-honors/ |website=[[Hanscom Air Force Base]] |access-date=16 August 2023 |date=7 October 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Kobren |first1=Bill |title=Winners of 2019 Defense Acquisition Awards |url=https://www.dau.edu/training/career-development/logistics/blog/Winners-of-2019-Defense-Acquisition-Awards- |website=[[Defense Acquisition University]] |access-date=16 August 2023 |date=November 1, 2019}}</ref> and inspired multiple similar agile "software factories" in the Air Force and other agencies of the Defense Department.<ref name="Success"/><ref name="Revolution"/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Eckstein |first1=Megan |title=Navy Software Factory, The Forge, Wants to Reshape How Ships Get Upgraded |url=https://news.usni.org/2021/04/12/navy-software-factory-the-forge-wants-to-reshape-how-ships-get-upgraded |access-date=17 August 2023 |work=USNI News |publisher=[[United States Naval Institute]] |date=12 April 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Walsh |first1=Edward |title=The Navy Gets a Software Factory |url=https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/august/navy-gets-software-factory |access-date=17 August 2023 |work=[[U.S. Naval Institute]] |date=1 August 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Eversden |first1=Andrew |title=Army Software Factory experiments with a new culture to unleash coders in its ranks |url=https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2021/04/14/army-software-factory-experiments-with-a-new-culture-to-unleash-coders-in-its-ranks/ |access-date=17 August 2023 |work=[[C4ISRNet]] |date=15 April 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Magnusson |first1=Stew |title=Army Software Factory Touts Early Successes |url=https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/5/4/army-software-factory-touts-early-successes |access-date=17 August 2023 |work=[[National Defense Magazine]] |date=May 4, 2022 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Davis |first1=Brett |title=Coast Guard is Upping its Game on Cyber, Human Resources and Equipment, Panelists Say |url=https://seapowermagazine.org/coast-guard-is-upping-its-game-on-cyber-human-resources-and-equipment-panelists-say/ |access-date=17 August 2023 |work=[[Seapower (magazine)|Seapower]] |date=6 April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Mitchell |first1=Billy |title=Marine Corps launches its first software factory |url=https://defensescoop.com/2023/03/10/marine-corps-launches-software-factory/ |access-date=17 August 2023 |work=DefenseScoop |date=10 March 2023}}</ref> ::
If you change your mind and agree some of these are actually obviously cited lower in the body, so don't need the additional citations here, I would be only too happy. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I wasn't suggesting to add more references to the lede, but rather to find better sources for the claims mentioned in the lede. I've not reviewed the proposed edit in detail but it seems suitable for the article body. Then after a while such claims can also be mentioned in the lede once settled a bit.
If I understand correctly, the Federal Computer Week and United States Naval Institute articles would become the main references for the claims about agile practices. It seems an improvement, but even better would be to find some sources from someone in the agile community who's not from a military background. Nemo 15:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All that is already in the article body. Here is the table of contents: Background - about the origin/need for Kessel Run. AgileAF - about the agile software practices that Kessel Run introduced to the Air Force. Reactions - about how KR was received. Software Factories - about the other groups it directly inspired. Applications - listing what KR made. The lede summarizes that.
Specifically the lede content you deleted is my best effort to summarize each of those sections in a sentence or less:
  • by the Defense Innovation Unit in response to the need to modernize legacy Air Force software that was noticeably hampering operations - Background section
  • and essentially introduced modern agile software development practices to the United States Department of Defense. -AgileAF section
  • It has won multiple awards - Reception section
  • and inspired multiple similar agile "software factories" in the Air Force and other agencies of the Defense Department - Software Factories section.
If you have a better way to summarize those sections in the lede, please say, I'm not claiming to be the best summarizer in the world. However, until you have such a better suggestion, please do restore your deletions, as otherwise the lede isn't summarizing the article at all. --GRuban (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done User:Gog the Mild restored the lede section in December, and it hasn't been reverted since, so I'm assuming this part is done. Gog says it actually needs to be expanded even more, and I hope to get to that eventually. --GRuban (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag

@Legoktm: I see you added a COI tag (and another, but that one is more complex). I think if you check, you will see that I have not edited the article since it moved to main space by an uninvolved reviewer, so the COI tag should be removed. The COI tag is for main space COI edits that have not been approved by an uninvolved reviewer, and there have not been any of those.

The other tag will be more complex (not least because I can't edit the article in mainspace myself!) but I will also try to get to that. Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: That's not at all how I read Template:COI#When to use. I don't think it really matters what namespace the text was in when the COI edits were made, it's clear to me they are problematic, so that's why I tagged it. My recommendation would be for you to just work on some other article and leave this to people without a COI entirely. Legoktm (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm: So the template is not actually the policy or guideline. That one is Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest which says (under WP:COIEDIT) "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" which is what I did. That's why the namespace matters: the COI editor creates the article in Draft, then an uninvolved reviewer pushes it to Main space. I hope you will agree that it would be perverse if an article created and approved following the rules should still bear the scarlet letter of a derogatory template. Certainly the reviewers of my other 4 COI articles, including an administrator who took credit for co-creating the WP:COI guideline, and the arbitrator and Wikipedian of the year who approved the first one, thought as much when they approved them. User:GRuban/COI details this, that is the link that I put in the review and had hoped people would read. Here, let me cut out the middle man ... er link ... , and let you read the words of Sarah/Slim Virgin herself, WP:COI co-creator, specifically about not having the COI template on the page: Talk:Rebecca Moore (scientist). --GRuban (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point, by adding the template, is that I read the article and considered it to have "standard COI problems" (as stated above). With that in mind, I think the template is appropriate, in addition to the POV one. If some other (non-COI) editor disagrees with me, they're free to remove it and explain why. I'm fully aware that someone has reviewed the article and moved it to mainspace, but that doesn't fix what I see as COI issues, nor of course should it be a "scarlet letter" - once the issues are resolved, it can and should be removed. Legoktm (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm: Hurrah! Thank you so much for responding, I was getting worried. OK, I am sure that we can come to a satisfactory compromise. Just to confirm, before I make specific proposals, though, your issues are
  • the description of "agile software development" as "modern",
  • "tanker whiteboard" together
  • the use of the "agileAF" tag as a section header
  • some language around "agileAF" that you haven't quite specified, but see as unencyclopedic
Or are there other specific things that need resolution? --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are just specific issues I pointed out to demonstrate my overall point that this article needs a full run through by someone who, I will repeat for the third and final time, does not have a COI with the subject. I understand and sympathize on why you want to improve it, but really, I fundamentally don't think it'll make the article better in the long run. I'm not interested in the subject, I just picked it up for DYK review since it was one of the oldest outstanding ones. Legoktm (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Legoktm, User:GRuban - My opinion is, first, that User:GRuban should not make any more edits to the article, but, second, that the COI tag should be removed unless anyone sees any non-neutral language, in which case they can edit the non-neutral language. The article was reviewed by a neutral uninvolved reviewer on 15 September 2023, me, when I said that I would have accepted the article if it had been properly tagged. Tagging disputes are mostly stupid. What should be discussed is not whether an article should be tagged, but whether the article should be (deleted or draftified or) improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like User:Quetstar removed the COI/POV tags, probably in response to my query at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Thank you very much Robert McClenon and Quetstar! --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the documentation for {{COI}} could be any clearer; it includes this (highlighting in original):

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning.

Legoktm: Please bear that in mind in the future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pigsonthewing, I provided my feedback on the talk page at the same time I tagged the article, it's above in the DYK nomination discussion. Legoktm (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look. I don't see anything that merits a COI or neutrality tag. But IMO it does have a bit of a subtle issue. It's written more like "The Story of Kessel Run and why it's needed" rather than a typical enclyclopedic article. Later on (after the discussion is over) I'd be happy to go through it if desired and if you ping me. North8000 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kessel_Run&oldid=1205124115"