Talk:Software quality assurance/Archives/2010
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Permissions
 | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://sqa.net/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material Under the GNU Free Documentation License. Because this permission was received prior to 1 November 2008, you may use the material under either that license or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2007021010012308. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en  wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
. Note: this permission only speaks to the text copyright and not to the quality of the article or the notability of its subject.Bastiq▼e demandez 15:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
This should be removed
This page is really bad. It doesn't cite any sources. It looks like an advertisement. It references a "white paper", which is basically an advertisement itself. See Commercial white papers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper
This entire topic should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.98.31 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I actually agree - either the assertions should be backed up, or this should be removed.
- An example 'SQA reduces development costs' - this is one theory, but until figures are produced to back this up then why should we believe it? Could it not be the case that dev cost goes up, and support cost goes down markedly? Or that dev cost goes up, but the IT department don't get sacked for delivering tripe? If dev costs go down, why do we have a common use term 'the cost of quality'? If cost goes down, why do we have that triangle of cost, time and quality? (okay - that last one could just be me being stuck back in the 90's with 80's ideas).
- I do happen to agree, but I don't necesarily think that an encyclopedia should just state views, and I have no quotable facts to back up my assertion. I'm happy to argue the case, but stickyminds is possibly the better place to do that.
- Thus I vote to remove, unless someone wants to add a load of references, or, of course, leave as is - but in that case please make clear that this is unsubstantiated theory Jtowler (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, Please remove this asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.116.140 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- This article is awful, as suggested above. There are no references, some of the definitions are wrong (the author's definition of validation demonstrates a clear lack of understanding) and various ubsubstantiated theories are put forward. Please delete this article. Alexibrow (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The section "Advantages of SQA" is practically a sales pitch.
Agreed - this article is fundamentally inaccurate. I've never once heard of a distinction between SQA and SQ Control, and SQA definitely has nothing inherently to do with ISO or other "standards" organizations. Zephyrjs (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
So is anyone gonna remove it or what? 20:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.41.31 (talk)
Instead of removing it, it may worth to update and link it to the topic "software quality". Besides, I think there is no commonly agreed definition on Quality Assurance and Quality Control. Some consider them different while some use them interchangeably. However, I tend to think that quality control is a topic within the quality assurance. This sounds similar to the original author's idea. Francis Law (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)