Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Game theory/archive1

Game theory edit

I present you with "Game theory". The article was substantially rewritten shortly after the Nobel prize and another user suggested it be nominated here. Its largely complete and contains an extensive list of online and offline references. We've tried to make it accessible without dumbing down the content. I'm really happy with how it turned out. --best, kevin _└^KZOLLMAN/_TALK^┐ 16:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Impressive, although I feel the history section could be developed a bit. Phils 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment, I agree. I have expanded this section some. I don't want to venture to say what the important developments in the 80s, 90s, and 00s are because the jury is still out (I think) about what was really revolutionary durring that time. If others have an idea, please add it! --best, kevin _└^KZOLLMAN/_TALK^┐ 23:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the images could be made a little larger. For example, the "three stage Centipede Game" is a large, detailed image, but unreadable at the given size. Turnstep 22:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment! I enlarged the incomplete information image and the centipede game image, is that better or shall I enlarge them further? --best, kevin _└^KZOLLMAN/_TALK^┐ 22:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks much better but I stll think the centipede one is just on the verge of being readable. Maybe a slight bit larger? On my browser, the lettering inside the image appears grey, but black on the full-size image. Not sure if that is a limitation of the image scaling, but it contributes to the problem. One other small thing: watch the overlinking of lone years, which is discouraged according to the Manual of Style. Turnstep 14:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have increased the centipede game to 300px, and delinked the years (but not the decades) in the History Section. I think the decades (esp. 1950s) ought to be linked since the growth in game theory was a result of the political situation at the time. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nicely readable. I trust our neighbourhood mathematicians have reviewed and approve of the factual content. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know this much about esoteric math theory: nothing. But I do like the article; it explains the subject very nicely. A few minor nitpicks - there are too many repeated links (I see Prisoner's dilemma linked to 8 times, Nash equilibrium 6 times, etc). A picture in the opening paragraph (if a suitable one could be identified) would be useful, too. Was going to complain about the punctuation, but just fixed that myself. Proto t c 11:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment; that's really great to hear. I was wondering about the readability. With respect to the linking, I like to link something when it occurs in each new section. The reason for this: is someone might not care about the classification of games, but might read the "uses in economics section". It would be a shame for them to have to scroll all the way up to the beginning of the article to determine what something is (esp. since so many of the links are just "for example, the blah blah blah"). Since the Prisoner's dilemma and Nash equilibrium occur everywhere in game theory, they end up occurring everywhere in this article :) I noticed you removed one instance of [[Nash equilibria]] that was a little overzealous linking on my part. Are there any others that you think are too close together? With respect to the picture, I agree. I'll go looking to see if I can find something appropriate. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is really good! I was actually at first going to object on the basis that, while explaining the topic very well, the whole thing left me with that slightly unsettling "well-informed, but still...vague" feeling. And I do think an "Example" section, describing in a good deal of understandable detail the specific application of game theory to designing something concrete, like a lottery or video game, or the mentioned MAD calculations, or some big economic policy, would really bring it to life, as it were. But, on a second read, the "Uses of game theory" section satisfied me sufficiently. (Since this is classified as "mathematics", I checked the math FAs for context. In a general encyclopedia with high aspirations as to accessibility to all, this is a horror, Trigonometric function, and this was great, Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace. Establishing broad real-world context is crucial. IMHO.) --Tsavage 22:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I concurr Tsavage! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]