User talk:Brown.ry/sandbox

Peer Review P3 (Saebr1)

Major points

This section is clear and a good topic for Wikipedia overall. The section title limits discussion to finding how many nxn magic squares exist, which is a topic directly related to the article in which it will appear. Existing knowledge of numbers of squares is provided, as is information on enumeration methods. No significant information is missing from this article section. Instead of saying "As mentioned above" in the first sentence, the author may want to lead with a stand-alone statement and avoid referencing other parts of the article.

The first paragraph of this section is well-organized. The second paragraph is slightly jumbled, and could be broken up into two paragraphs for clarity. I'd suggest discussing the random generation of magic squares in one paragraph, and discussing more complicated estimation methods in another: put a paragraph break between "...proportional to the number of magic squares" and "More intricate versions..."

Word choice is generally appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Some words could link to other articles in order to make the article clearer. For instance, I don't know what an equivalence class is, and a link to that page might be helpful. Other readers might want links to pages on the Monte Carlo method.

Some words used in this article imply that the author is drawing conclusions, when that should not be the case. "Thus there is basically just one" in the first paragraph could be changed to "This is comparable to one" Likewise, "Since traditional counting methods" in the second paragraph could be changed to "Traditional counting methods," which would stand on its own and prevent the author from having to draw a conclusion. It may help to pay attention to opinion words when proofreading this section.

Minor points

Some grammar problems are present. The second paragraph should be proofread for clarity. Sentences could be broken up or commas could be added so that the description of the application of the Monte Carlo method is more formulaic.

This article does not include enough references. References are missing entirely from the second paragraph. Citations should be included for analysis using the Monte Carlo method, as well as for the use of exchange Monte Carlo and Monte Carlo backtracking methods. If an image can't be pulled from a study, it might be appropriate to cite a mathematician who used fitting functions to produce curves.

Saebr1 (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)