"A couple of gripes with this page: 

 1) V&V; is not ""normally part of the software testing process of a project.""  Depending on a particular organization's philosophy, I've seen it as either (a) the inline-with-development structure/process that guides activities such as testing (and design reviews, etc) or (b) the parallel-to-development, classically-independent review of the output of all development phases (of which one phase is testing) 

 2) There is no relationship between [static testing and verification], or [dynamic testing and validation].  That is just two different types of testing; either the code is running, or not.  That's just very random to me.  This bizarre association is also echoed on the ""Static Testing"" and ""Dynamic Testing"" pages, except they reversed it (not that it makes any more or less sense backwards). 

 Also, I think I've read two sets of definitions of ""Verification"" with respect to ""Validation"".  One is given in this page, the other says that verification is confirming the output of each phase, validation is confirming the output of the whole process.  However can't cite my source; when I find it I will add to this.  Oh, found it: IEEE 12207, Sections 6.4 and 6.5.  (You know, on second thought, the language is so weird that both interpretations are possible.  Maybe they're one and the same, it comes down to verification is low level checking along the way, validation is final check that all requirements are met.  However now I wonder if ""built the product right"" vs ""built the right product"" is a handy mnemonic that loses some of the meaning  you shouldn't wait till the end to make sure you built the right product.) 

  "