Wikipedia:Featured article review/Game theory/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 19:04, 18 March 2008.
Game theory[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker, Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory, User:Kzollman, User:Pete.Hurd and User:Trovatore
The article fails several of criteria. The usual suspects such as no too few inline citations (1c), the lead covers stuff that is not covered in the body, and there is a lot of stuff in the body that is not covered in the lead (2a). I also believe it fails the comprehensiveness criteria (1b) since the article does not say anything about the point of Game theory but instead focuses on more technical matters. --Peter Andersen (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does have inline citations, but they are in an abysmal state: not only are they sparse, but they mix footnotes (a few) and Harvard references (in various formats) in an unhelpful way. Can we fix this? My wiki-time is limited, but I'd like to go through and update this 2005 FA with up-to-date citation template technology. I think this will go a long way to putting it back on track. I would encourage any other interested editors to help. Geometry guy 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I volunteer to polish the references section according to the current standards. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The formatting of the references in the Ref section using {{citation}} templates is done. I also added publishers, ISBNs, ISSNs, and some URLs where available - as an aside, this shows how a central reference database like the one I use helps doing this kind of slightly stupid, but necessary work. {{Harvtxt}} templates could be used for referring to the refs in the main text. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains a lot of interesting material. But I think the intro section is too long; I'd rather if that section just provided an overview of the subject. Mentioning game theorists in movies and TV shows seems a bit too tangential here; such prominent mention of popular culture references will date the article and unnecessarily alienate some readers. I think it would help to split up the opening paragraph too; the sentences make too many topical leaps to fit coherently into one paragraph. Keep up the good work. —Kymacpherson (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the lead and citation issue needs to be addressed, and as I have time I will do so in the next few days. One note about comprehensiveness, I think that the section Application and challenges addresses your concerns. Is there something specific you think has been left out? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big improvement! —Kymacpherson (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still a mixture of citation styles (inline and cite.php) and unformatted citations (example: SSRN-It Takes Two: An Explanation of the Democratic Peace by Gilat Levy, Ronny Razin ). Sample edits of MOS adjustments left in edit summaries. Please ping me to read through the entire article when it's further along. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my issue with comprehensiveness. In the lead it says "Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, where an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others." What I would like is a section that expands on this because this vital point is not explained outside the lead. Instead you start out with a section about Representation of games, which is frankly not the most important subject in game theory.--Peter Andersen (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter, I'm sorry I must be dense this afternoon, but I still don't understand. Game theory studies games which are mathematical representations of strategic situations. The section on representation is precisely what that is, the mathematical representation of strategic situations. Game theory studies things that can be represented in that way. In that sense, the representation section is the core of topic. Could you be more specific on what you think is not being covered? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm not being clear! Two things. If the applications section is the core, why is it hidden at the end? What I am looking for is the application section in a more generalized form. The way I see it, the article should first explain what is Game theory in a generalized form, then we go into how it is applied in different fields. Does that make sense? --Peter Andersen (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, now I see what your getting at. Let me give some thought to how that might be done. One option might be to move the application section to the top. The reason I avoided doing that when I wrote the article for the first time was that this section has pictures which can only be understood once you've read the representation section. A difficulty with a more general "application" section is that there are so many different applications of game theory that it is hard to say something both generaltof games section, but after the representation section. I can also try to expand the intro paragraph in the applications section to be a little more detailed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article still fails a bit to say what Game theory actually is. The three main sections talk about different types of categorization and applications, which is valuable. To be excellent, the article, IMO, lacks an introduction section which is kind of a roof over these three main sections. To accomplish this, it might be better to put the history part before the other ones. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think maybe the terminology is getting in the way. Game theory is a method for mathematically representing a certain type of interaction (as explained in the representation section). That's it. That's what game theory is. Given that one has a particular representation, one can do many different things with it. Those are it's applications. So in that sense game theory just is its applications. Either way, there isn't really anything more that can be said about game theory without talking about specific applications. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove - per nom. No major improvements - article is still largely uncited. --Peter Andersen (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm a bit concerned over the citation issues in articles like this. Most of the article contains basic material which can be found in any of the textbook references listed at the bottom (in fact, this is why they were added). Citing anything explicitly would significantly reduce the quality of the article: (1) it would make the text hard to scan since it adds junk to the article and (2) either we cite only one source making that source appear more important or we cite them all rendering the article a long list of citations. If there are specific parts of the article that people think are in need of citation for whatever reason, I would be more than happy to discuss them and add citations where necessary. However, I don't think the blanket "not enough citation" criticism is appropriate here. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm concerned about the prose and the flow, and terms that are used before they are defined. I wish a new, previously uninvolved editor would run through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm a bit concerned over the citation issues in articles like this. Most of the article contains basic material which can be found in any of the textbook references listed at the bottom (in fact, this is why they were added). Citing anything explicitly would significantly reduce the quality of the article: (1) it would make the text hard to scan since it adds junk to the article and (2) either we cite only one source making that source appear more important or we cite them all rendering the article a long list of citations. If there are specific parts of the article that people think are in need of citation for whatever reason, I would be more than happy to discuss them and add citations where necessary. However, I don't think the blanket "not enough citation" criticism is appropriate here. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Some inconsistencies in formatting like "Game theory and "Game Theory", "1930s" and "1930's". There are quite a few single line paragraphs that need to be expanded or merged. Also the lead doesn't summarise the main body, which is a problem. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.