Talk:Acceptable quality limit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Statistics (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Acceptance vice Acceptable:[edit]

I think the quote from ANSI/ASQ... provides a subtle but important insight into the meaning and intent of the standard. Please include the distinction in any future article.

One way would be to retitle the article to the current specified terminology and put a historical note regarding the old phrase. If the article continues to be titled by the old phrase, at least retain a statement noting it is replaced in the ANSI/ASQ standard.

Thanks --KitemanSA (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The "acceptable" form appears in 3 different stats dictionaries, but none have "acceptance". If the alternative is to appear at all, then there should be better details for the citation ... publisher/date/ISBN or whatever is needed to provide a means of finding it (worldwide not just USA). I didn't find it online, but it may well not be as a lot of money is made by selling hard copies of standards. The websites I found having apparently the same name did seem to be using "acceptable" so obviously they haven't taken the point on board. Have you found anyone else who uses "acceptance" or is it just a single mistaken misuse of English? Melcombe (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the phrase does sound like a case of poor English, but the current definition of AQL (per ANSI) is "Acceptance Quality Limit." The earlier definition was "Acceptable Quality Level." Here's a link that mentions the change, which occurred in the 2003 version: AQL Inspectors Rule--Koppas (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have put a paragraph in for this information ...see if it is OK or change accordingly. Melcombe (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

alpha and beta errors[edit]

I don't have the time to add this info now, but here is a link to a book which explains the link of AQL and RQL to alpha and beta errors in accepting and rejecting based on a quality test: Hughes, Charles C. (2005). State construction quality assurance programs. Washington, D.C: Transportation Research Board. ISBN 0-309-09749-5. 

Another interesting link: Pyzdek, Thomas (1989). What every engineer should know about quality control. New York: M. Dekker. ISBN 0-8247-7966-5. 

(Slashme 16:28, 8 March 2010)

I have added these refs to the main articleunder "further reading" for now. Melcombe (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)