Talk:COSMIC functional size measurement

Frank Vogelezang (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Template messages were raised June 16 by Chetsford for:

Uncategorised - Solved by Berek June 17 - Solved by Frankvogelezang June 18

Copy edit - Solved by Berek June 17 - Solved by NumbnessOfDestruction June 18

Notability - Solved by Frankvogelezang June 18 by adding additional external references

Template message deleted by Frankvogelezang June 18

Suggest we rename the section The method structure to The method applicability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinrhammond (talk • contribs) 12:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Or just remove it. MOS:LAYOUT states that short sections are not necessary and makes reading more difficult. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Template messages seem to be all solved. Please advise if we can also delete notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankvogelezang (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

CoI

Based on Frankvogelezang (talk · contribs)'s user page, he is the president of the company. I understand now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for expecting you to be a mind reader. In addition to the editor COI, it looks to me like most (all?) of the sources currently used are connected. For example the Auerbach publications source is written by the chair of Cosmic's executive committee. - MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The community on Functional Size Measurement, of which the COSMIC method is part, is a small community and those who are willing to publish on Wikipedia are an even smaller group, so CoI is hard to evade. To avoid the possible bias I will submit further changes via a request on this page and declare the CoI on this page. COSMIC is an open method, freely accessible and usable by any software professional who wants to do so and my position is unpaid. Frank Vogelezang (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Not hard to avoid at all. First, do not edit the article directly. Make suggestions here and let third-party editors add it or make requests to modify your suggested content. That would go a long way. Second, don't use content sourced to your site. Find secondary sources, whether that's journals or others who are unaffiliated with your company. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added: The COSMIC method is recognized as ISO Standard ISO/IEC 19761. The link is ref 2, but the mention that it is an ISO standard is missing in the text, where all other relevant standards are mentioned with their ISO-number in the text. This is an important secondary source that is missing from the article. Can someone without CoI add this reference? Frank Vogelezang (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Walter Görlitz: for their input on this.  Spintendo  22:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is on my watch list. You do not need to ping me to get my attention. I will respond when I have time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply 23-APR-2019

  Already implemented  

1. The mention that it is an ISO standard is missing in the text. The requested claim is already in the article, as the last sentence of The method section: "The foundation of the method is the ISO/IEC 19761 standard, which contains the definitions and basic principles that are described in more detail in the COSMIC measurement manual."
2. External links embedded within the article's text, as is done in the text of the COI editor's proposal, are generally not appropriate to use in an article's main text, per WP:ELPOINTS. As an alternative, ref tag #2 was extended to cover this last sentence of The method section.

Regards,  Spintendo  03:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

{{request edit}}
Information to be added or removed: In the 'The method' section there is "Measurement Manual". I suggest to add here the reference to the Manual on cosmic-sizing:

Explanation of issue: Speaks for itself References supporting change: - Lesterhuisa (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lesterhuisa (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Alleged conflict

My recent changes improve clarity and readability IMO and apart from Walter, I see no complaints. I am an enthusiast of the COSMIC methodology and I have a company that uses its methodology. I do not work for COSMIC so I fail to understand the direct conflict of interest as I understand it. It's like declaring a COI on a page about apple products by someone who has an apple product. Only the community who understand the COSMIC methodology are well placed to accurately explain it in the context of other functional sizing methodologies. The page is currently misleading, kindly unblock please. Colinrhammond (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm the first one on the scene so I will be the first to complain.

Thank you for explaining your CoI.

The edit you made had a few problems. The largest is creating unnecessarily short sections, which goes against MOS:LAYOUT. The second is ignoring MOS:HEADING by 1) using caps on each word, and 2) by repeating terms. In short, it could have been exactly as it was. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Walter. Would it have been more acceptable to split latest generation from previous generations by using headings instead of a new section like this?

The method <- Section (as is)

Latest generation <- heading (new)

about the latest generation

Earlier generations <- heading (new)

about the earlier generation

Colinrhammond (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is a separation needed at all? A new paragraph is enough for clear separation.

And speaking of paragraphs, bullet points is not considered good prose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Additions to the explanation of the method

Information to be added or removed: see the existing text below and add the two indicated phrases, the first one starts and ends with @1, the second one starts and ends with @2. Also I uploaded a figure from the MM: COSMIC-Wikipedia.png, it would be great if it could be added:

The method translates the Functional User Requirements of the software to @1a number of functional processes, each with a number of data movements. A data movement moves data about a ‘thing’. There are@1 four types of data movements: • Entry (E) • Exit (X) • Read (R) • Write (W) @2When a functional user moves data into the software, a COSMIC function point (CFP) is identified for each unique “Entry, ‘thing’” combination. Idem for the Exit, Read and Write data movements.@2 The function point count provides measurement of software size. It may be used to estimate (and benchmark) software project effort, cost, duration, quality and maintenance work.

Explanation of issue: From the present text the relationship between 'data movement' and 'size' isn't clear References supporting change: None Lesterhuisa (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done where is the source for this? Formatting is all wrong as well, and we try to write in prose, not bullet points. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

1) The bullet points preceding the data movements can be replaced by commas, the sentences become

"The method translates the Functional User Requirements of the software to four types of data movements: Entry (E), Exit (X), Read (R) and Write (W). The function point count provides measurement of software size."

2) The present text speaks of "data movements" and "function points", however doesn't explain their relationship. The text between both @2s explains this relationship.

3) The source of 2) is the Measurement Manual (mentioned in the article, can be downloaded for free).

4) Please apply the changes including adding the image "Wikipedia.png" and remove the protect mode.

Lesterhuisa (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.

1. Still no source for the change.
2. No mention of its ability to be "downloaded for free" should be made.
3. Why would we add image:Wikipedia.png?
4. The page will be unprotected when the correct unprotection request is made. Please read Wikipedia:Protection policy. The WP:COI issue will also need to be addressed before that happens.

Does that answer your questions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Walter,

No.

1. I summarized how the method works, the Meas. Manual is of course the source for this (which I mentioned), if that's not a source, what other source do you mean?
2. The "download for free" is intended for you to verify my summary if you like (i.e. not to be entered in the article text)
3. The image shows the reader in a split second the main features of the method. It is the very reason to add images to encyclopedias at all (IMO).

I hope this is clear Lesterhuisa (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences about automation and the future with two expert citations and MrOllie who appears not to be expert in COSMIC keeps blocking them.Colinrhammond (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure the fact that you sell the automation product in question had nothing to do with that. - MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Update ref

The US Government Audit office reference 16 should be updated to the latest version of March 2020 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-195g.pdf --Colinrhammond (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)