Template:Did you know nominations/Software feature

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 BorgQueen (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Software feature

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that some experts assert that design by committee can lead to an excessive accumulation of software features? Source: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ME.1943-5479.0001079
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Partofthemachine (talk). Self-nominated at 05:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Software feature, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• hmm. I think the article has some prohibitive deficiencies that make it a long way from meeting the DYK criteria – but to your credit, Partofthemachine, articles on broad concepts like this are incredibly tough, so kudos to you for taking it on. First up, we have some sourcing/due weight issues: I see claims about the capability of programming languages sourced to developers, which doesn't demonstrate a need for inclusion in the article. Other sources do similarly seem to lack a rigor that, in aggregate, makes me uneasy. I'm also seeing a bare URL or two. But I think the prohibitive problem is that the article struggles with a scope that is far too broad, and doesn't give any of its multiple definitions enough space to be developed. The background section, for example, consists entirely of hardware features, and the lead doesn't seem to give a clear definition of what a software feature actually is. After having read through the article, I'm not sure I'm actually clearer on the concept – not to mention that the article doesn't really have detail on how a software feature is conceived or implemented, or what the significance of a feature-oriented approach is in the history of software overall.
  A lot of this is inherently pretty subjective, so I understand if you think I'm totally off-base. And while I'll never knock the effort, I don't think the information here is presented in a way that is, in more than surface, an encyclopedic article. There's a lot of good stuff here, but I think it just needs a lot more development. Perhaps you could think about a few ways to focus up the article, maybe tuck the irrelevant stuff away for some later drafts. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)