Template:Did you know nominations/Jackknife (statistics)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Ohc ¡digame! 12:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Jackknife (statistics)
edit- ... that the statistical jackknife technique was named because it is useful in a variety of situations much like a jackknife?
- Reviewed: Lake Billy Chinook
Created by Bkwillwm (talk). Self nominated at 03:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC).
Article was expanded from a Redir less than 5 days before being nominated. Article is long enough. Sources appear reliable. There are not sufficient inline citations. Specifically, the "Estimation" section and its formula, and the "Bias estimation and correction" section and its formula are not cited at all. I could wish that there was text about the advantages and disadvantages of the technique, but that is not a requirement for a DYK of this article. DES (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hook is less than 200 characters. Inline cites to all sections are now present. Hook has inline citation. positive comments above still apply. AGF on close paraphrasing since sources are off line. Quick Google check finds no indication of copyvio. Hook is formatted properly. I find the hook interesting. The hook is neutral, insofar as that applies to this sort of article; so is the article as a whole. QPQ done. Looks good to go to me. DES (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
