|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Confidence interval article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of statistics, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.|
|Threads older than 3 months may be archived by.|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at College of Engineering, Pune supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program. Further details are available on the course page.|
With regards to the approachability of this article
Why not use the Simple English version of this complicated article (link below)? It seems more accessible for the average reader than the in-depth one here.
In the section "Meaning and Interpretation", there is the following definition: "Were this procedure to be repeated on multiple samples, the calculated confidence interval (which would differ for each sample) would encompass the true population parameter 90% of the time." The footnote right behind this strongly suggests that this is taken literally from "Cox D.R., Hinkley D.V. (1974) Theoretical Statistics, Chapman & Hall, p49, p209". However, if you actually take a look at the book (e.g. on Google books, where all relevant pages are freely available: https://books.google.de/books?id=ppoujo-BInsC), it turns out that this statement is not at all in the book. The footnote is therefore misleading, and I think somebody should change the article and at least make clear that the definition is not a quotation from the book, but -- at best -- a summary/rephrasing of its content.
Utterly indecipherable to the lay-reader.
If the general public is your audience, this article is a complete failure. I'm a reader with an advanced degree, and a well-rounded education, and I can't penetrate even the lede. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- simple:Confidence interval? fgnievinski (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Missing the forest for the trees
The CI article missed or obfuscates a few critical notions:
- Confidence intervals are a way to express the mean and variability of a sample.
- Confidence implies a sample---probability has the connotation of a distribution.
- Agree, & why don't you take a crack at it? Please ? --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
A few carefully chosen words word make the article much clearer
"In each of the above, the following applies: If the true value of the parameter lies outside the 90% confidence interval once it has been calculated, then an event has occurred which had a probability of 10% (or less) of happening by chance."
It took me a long time to understand why this was not an example of the common misconceptions detailed in the following section. Only when I'd understood that "an event" should be taken to mean "the action of performing sampling and calculating the specific interval" and not simply "the lying outside the interval of the population mean", did the sentence not appear at odds with a correct interpretations of the confidence interval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)