Talk:CovidSim

COVID-19 Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Renaming

Hi, renaming sub-section "Critique", which is not ideally in line with WP:MOS as I learned; suggesting new headings.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement over sources - Alvin Wilby Analysis

Hi, @Mvolz and @Bri, I noticed the disagreement and I think we should clarify this off-site, Talk page.

For new readers, it's about this added/removed content "Dr Alvin Wilby, FRAeS concluded in a review from July 2020 submitted to UK Parliament Committee that the model and software suffers from a number of deficiencies, including poor documentation, high complexity and false modelling, and that due to inacceptable software quality, the model would fail against accreditation of safety standards such as MISRA." with reference https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/8522/pdf/

Argument by Bri: "author is a recognized expert in software design; chartered engineer and former VP at Thales, keynote speaker for Royal Aero Society https://www.aerosociety.com/media/10644/63rd-rj-mitchell-lecture-poster.pdf"
Argument by Mvolz: "That may be, but this is a primary source, and not peer reviewed, ergo it's not considered a reliable source. If you can find a secondary source which references it, fine."
Argument by 17387349L8764 (myself): Pro-add, because looking beyond peer-review is valid; Such expert reviews are performed on consulting basis, there is no explicit journal as far as I can tell. Wilby's paper isn't a 3-line comment, but rather a valuable analysis of the simulation and particular software engineering aspects. Of course it would be simpler if such documents would be DOI'ed and published at least somewhere reasonable/reliable?

For others: WP:DR

--17387349L8764 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]