Talk:Design effect/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Talgalili (talk · contribs) 14:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 08:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Talgalili and thanks for all your improvements to this article. However, despite the improvements, the article fails criterion 2b since there are too many unreferenced paragraphs. Examples are the paragraphs starting with "In other words, $Deff$ measures the extent", "Even so, in various cases a researcher might approximate", and "An example of a design which can lead". According to criterion 2b, these passages require inline citations "no later than the end of the paragraph". This was already pointed out at the featured article review a few days ago at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Design_effect/archive1. I suggest that you add all the relevant references before a renomination. It would probably best to have a peer review before that.

A few other observations

• WP:EARWIG detects potential copyright violations with http://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/12-001-x/2004002/article/7751-eng.pdf. This should be checked in more detail before a renomination as well.
• The article lacks a short description
• many headlines in the table of contents have problems, such as "Haphazard weights with estimated ratio-mean (?'"`UNIQ--postMath-000000C2-QINU`"'?) - Kish's design effect" and "Spencer's Deff for estimated total (?'"`UNIQ--postMath-000000EB-QINU`"'?)"
• To have a more impersonal encyclopedic style, replace first-person pronouns like "we" and "our" with alternative formulations
• this can lead to an increase both the variance and bias of the weighted estimator. add "of" before "increase"
• In their works, Kish and others highlights several known replace "highlights" with "highlight"
• Reasons for non-response are varied and depends on the context replace "depends" with "depend"
• https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/525741/how-to-estimate-the-approximate-variance-of-the-weighted-mean/525770#525770 and https://github.com/pewresearch/pewmethods are probably unreliable sources.

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.