Talk:Wilks's lambda distribution

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.
 

Can anybody make this article simple and easy to understand format, along with day-to-day language examples. Thank you.

I would like to suggest including a one-sentence description of what it's used for. Unfortunately, I don't know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.200.111 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


In general I think Wikipedia statistics articles authors need to 1) decide on a format for different tests and 2) stick to that format. Here is my proposal, which makes sense mathematically.

1) State name of test/theorem/result, and give some history.
2) State a precise definition. Attempt to make the definition self-contained when possible.
This means:
a) Expand and substitute other definitions in place except for truly universally understood things (like mean, standard deviation, etc). For example, just write the equation in place versus referring the reader to the XXYY result.
b) Where other definitions are necessary, make sure that appropriate links point to these definitions.
c) Avoid buzzwords and terminology. This partly goes back to a) and b); if terminology is absolutely required, then link to it, but never leave the reader guessing with phrases like, a generalization of Foo's bar.
d) "Is a generalization of," and "Is a special case of" are not appropriate definitions! The word "essentially" should never appear in a definition.
e) Do not explain a definition by example or special case. Go straight for the general case. a) and b) should make this possible.
f) Make sure every single assumption is listed.
3) Give some intuition, provide examples.
4) Give other related work, and most importantly do a pro/con analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.48.184 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

omissions[edit]

This article seems more-or-less OK as far as it goes, but there are crucial omissions if one wants to know how to use this in the hypothesis tests for which it is intended. I think I'll look this over for a couple of days and maybe add something on that. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)