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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
"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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Agree with RJH (his opinion isn't overly significant is it?). giggy(
:O) 08:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm fairly sure he is notable - it's just that no one has started an article on him yet.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Anyways, he's a prominent mathematical author, and I think his opinion is significant.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 02:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)reply
"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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
There's always the smallmatrix approach: . —
RJH (
talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
That works. :) giggy(
:O) 08:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
"The second part discussed combinatorics..." - check this paragraph's prose... lots of "this part" and "also" and it doesn't read too well.
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!
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Check
your quoting as well, the quotation marks are a bit unwieldy at the moment, at least according to our twisted MoS.
I fixed the minor issues I spotted. --
Kakofonous (
talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Pretty sure that "Hald, Anders (253), A History of Probability and Statistics and Their Applications Before 1750, Wiley,
ISBN978-0-471-47129-5" 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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Only a few comments, but every little bit helps, right? --
Kakofonous (
talk) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
RJHall
The text says that, "...thus leading to the fact that p0+p1+...+pn," which isn't really a conclusion. Did you mean to include " = 1" or " = 100%" there?
For x/(1-e-x), why not ? 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)reply
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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
"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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Agree with RJH (his opinion isn't overly significant is it?). giggy(
:O) 08:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm fairly sure he is notable - it's just that no one has started an article on him yet.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Anyways, he's a prominent mathematical author, and I think his opinion is significant.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 02:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)reply
"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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
There's always the smallmatrix approach: . —
RJH (
talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
That works. :) giggy(
:O) 08:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
"The second part discussed combinatorics..." - check this paragraph's prose... lots of "this part" and "also" and it doesn't read too well.
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!
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Check
your quoting as well, the quotation marks are a bit unwieldy at the moment, at least according to our twisted MoS.
I fixed the minor issues I spotted. --
Kakofonous (
talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Pretty sure that "Hald, Anders (253), A History of Probability and Statistics and Their Applications Before 1750, Wiley,
ISBN978-0-471-47129-5" 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.
Nousernamesleftcopper, not
wood 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Only a few comments, but every little bit helps, right? --
Kakofonous (
talk) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)reply
RJHall
The text says that, "...thus leading to the fact that p0+p1+...+pn," which isn't really a conclusion. Did you mean to include " = 1" or " = 100%" there?
For x/(1-e-x), why not ? 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)reply