Wikipedia:Peer review/Ars Conjectandi/archive1

Ars Conjectandi

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'd really like to get this through a FAC - I realize it's rather short, but there isn't a whole lot to say on it. I've touched up the prose myself a bit, but I probably missed at least a few things, and other opinions are always welcome. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy

• Perhaps merge the first two sentences?
  • Done. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• "It has been dubbed a landmark in probability theory by author William Dunham." - who's he, and what's he got to do with it?
  • Well, he's just a random guy who happened to write about this thing. I'm not sure whether it's necessary to state this in the article. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If he is not notable then his opinion shouldn't matter. I think that should be removed.—RJH (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Agree with RJH (his opinion isn't overly significant is it?). giggy _(:O) 08:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm fairly sure he is notable - it's just that no one has started an article on him yet. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Anyways, he's a prominent mathematical author, and I think his opinion is significant. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• "occurring is b/a" - is that b divided by a? There's some groovy maths formatting markup stuff that might make this look better.
  • Well, there's LaTeX \frac{}{}, but that makes it look uglier, actually - it makes it a lot bigger than the surrounding text. This is the only way I can think of. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • There's always the smallmatrix approach: ${\begin{smallmatrix}{\frac {b}{a}}\end{smallmatrix}}$ . —RJH (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • That works. :) giggy _(:O) 08:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Eww... I can't judge the maths stuff. It's too far below me :P It's too much like work...
  • Ha - it's not so complicated, the sigmas just make it look so. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The second part discussed combinatorics..." - check this paragraph's prose... lots of "this part" and "also" and it doesn't read too well.
  • I've tried to fix it up. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The tract on calculus has been quoted frequently; most notably by the Scottish Colin Maclaurin.? - ref?
  • Schneider 2006 page 1 - given at the end of the paragraph. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • When "quoting" you need to cite directly at the end of the sentence. giggy _(:O) 08:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, hope this helps a little. giggy _(:O) 10:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from supposed stalker Kakofonous (talk · contribs)

• At least a brief description of combinatorics, even though it is linked, would be helpful.
  • Added. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overlinking throughout; please check.
  • Seems to be fixed now. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• I notice some inconsistency with dashes; you're even using an unspaced en dash not to indicate disjunction! Oh, the horror!
  • Heh - if you check the history of that page, I added the "dashes" entry myself. Shame on me! Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Check your quoting as well, the quotation marks are a bit unwieldy at the moment, at least according to our twisted MoS.
  • Hm, I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with the quotes. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I fixed the minor issues I spotted. --Kakofonous (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm a bit mystified as to why you put a complete reference in every ref tag, rather than just repeating them using <ref name="..."> ... <ref name="..."/>.
  • Well, I like to be able to find the content of references easily, and it's really annoying when I see just that and have to go up further. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Makes sense. --Kakofonous (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Pretty sure that "Hald, Anders (253), A History of Probability and Statistics and Their Applications Before 1750, Wiley, ISBN 978-0-471-47129-5" is a typo? The printing press wasn't invented for a long time after 253...
• What are you talking about? I invented the printing press in 252! :o Fixed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Only a few comments, but every little bit helps, right? --Kakofonous (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RJHall

• The text says that, "...thus leading to the fact that p₀+p₁+...+p_n," which isn't really a conclusion. Did you mean to include " = 1" or " = 100%" there?
  • Erm, yeah. Thanks for that. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Explain_jargon#Mathematics, I think you should include explain the choose notation in the Bernoulli distribution.
  • Footonoted. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• For x/(1-e-x), why not ${\begin{smallmatrix}{\frac {x}{1-e^{-x}}}\end{smallmatrix}}$? The "1-e-x" could be confusing.
  • Oops - I would have latexed it, but I didn't know how to do so without making it significantly bigger than the surrounding text (which is fine for huge equations, but...). Thanks!

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)