Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Design effect/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 May 2024 [1].

Design effect[edit]

Nominator(s): Tal Galili (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a way to measure how well a sample of people may represent a larger group of people for a specific measure of interest (such as the mean). This is important when the sample comes from a sampling method that is different than just picking people using a simple random sample. When researchers use complicated methods to pick their sample (e.g., for surveys), they use the design effect to plan, check and adjust their results.

This article was recently published in the Wiki-journal of Science after going through rigorous peer review: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Design_effect.

Tal Galili (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Large areas of this are unreferenced - whole paragraphs and entire tables without any citations at all, means this is not going to be a featured article any time soon. Can I suggest you withdraw and spend a couple of weeks ensuring every part of it is supported with citations to reliable sources, and then re-nominate? - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Echoing what SchroCat has said here a little bit, but this has broad ranges without citations. Additionally, I feel that large parts are overly technical; I understand this is common in mathematics-focused articles, but as someone without a background in statistics, I have no idea what this article is even about - I know the nitty gritty is going to be impossible to explain without getting into pretty serious math, but the introduction and lede should be written in a way that someone without a background in the field can understand it. I would echo calls for withdrawal and suggest that you get this through a GA review and possibly a peer review from some established mathematics editors first before you take this back to FAC. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I would echo the comments above that this is not the right place for this article at this time. Peer Review or GA would be a much better forum for it at the moment: in particular, unreferenced text and bare URLs in the text are heavy weights against FA status, and I would take some serious convincing that the structure of headings and subheadings is the best. On a more nit-picky point, there seems to be something wrong with the mathematical formatting in those subheadings, which causes them to display incorrectly in the ToC: an editor experienced with mathematical articles may be better placed to advise. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I'll start a GA review first, and will see where it leads. Tal Galili (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.