Talk:Incrementalism

message: I noticed an edit on the first paragraph. 
Incrementalism is a method of working using a gradual incremental approach such as adding to a project over time. 
<became> 
Incrementalism is a process of adding to a gradually to a project by series of small steps.
I may be wrong, but I think incrementalism is a methodology of work i.e. a philosophy. A process is a means of doing work. I've reverted back to "a method of working", because I think this is the simplest way to say "working methodology". However I preferred the "adding to a project" by small steps (although the idea of a project may be redundant because there is no need to plan and therefore no need to define a scope for the work beyond the immediately focus of improvement).
--Mike 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Paragraph

message: "The antithesis of incrementalism is that work must be accomplished in one single push rather than a process of continuous improvement." CI generally refers to a specific method in quality management. Although it is "incremental" it is hardly a good example of  "incrementalism" in the context of planning. Quality management requires business planning. This should be clear from a cursory reading of Shewhart, Deming, Juran, and Crosby. 
--Suidafrikaan (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuous improvement 

message: Overall, a decent article and great job so far! I'm including some points below that I noticed.
Content
The lead section has a good overview of what incrementalism is, but it doesn't break down any of what to expect in the article. 
Representativeness
Good job on showing the pros/cons in a neutral tone.
Sourcing
I would find more sources if possible- I noticed the first and second sources were the same and one source was merely a link to another wikipedia page that wasn't relevant. The sources look like proper MLA format (I think it's MLA, at least) and it's consistent. 
Readability
Good use of third person/neutral tone throughout the article. However, I noticed some small grammatical mistakes and run-on sentences in the article that affected the overall flow and made the article a little difficult to read smoothly. 
The organization of the article was great, I can't think of any changes that would help it. 
Overall
Solid job, make the minor tweaks and it'll be A material. 
147.26.109.194 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Peer Review 

message: Content
The article is pretty good, however in the earlier paragraphs it could be broken down a tad bit more before going off right into examples. The "Usage" is pretty decent, however the small paragraph that involved John McCain seemed random and not properly placed. The amount of sourcing seems appropriate for the amount of paragraphs. 
Readability
The writing seems pretty good, pretty understandable just a couple of small mistakes with grammar. Seemed very neutral and the formatting was pretty good, the Pros/Cons spot might look better if bolded or underlined. But having a pros/cons section is very good.
Comprehensiveness
The articles points were made very clear and pretty good, however it felt as if a lot of it was examples constantly through out the whole article. The main point was pretty clear and what each section had to offer was clear as well. A variety of perspectives from studies and examples.
Overall
Good article, pretty together, and just small mistakes and it will be even better. 
Mrk34 (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Peer Review

message: The Article is well written with just a few grammar issues. The lead section is clear and concise and gives the reader a good understanding of what incrementalism is. For most of the sections there is a nice variety of sources but I believe there needs to be more variety of sources used when it comes to the Pro and Con section. Also, for the "Contrast to Other Planning Methodologies" there are no sources.The article is well balanced and there is not an overuse of complex language. The article also remains neutral and there are no opinions that I can see that are not cited. The article is also well organized and each section is well written.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dng21 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review  

message: :
Not the slightest bit true, and the source is from 2013, and possibly has problems.  As Oreskes famously demonstrated, the consensus was solid; still others have shown that the evidence has been in for many decades.  Further, neither of these things had any impact on US policy makers, who are still beholden to fossil fuel interests.  This statement needs to be removed or changed as it is flat out wrong. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, as it is egregious in its overarching error. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Climate change