Talk:Error Carried Forward

Peer Review
What does the article (or section) do well? The article does a great job at explaining what ECF is with clear concise wording and an example What changes would you suggest overall? I would suggest that you maybe give an example of the suggested solution from the sub-reddit part b and c if possible. You show what it is like when the wrong answer is given (good meme btw) and then carried forward as described in part a, but what about showing the idea of it being wrong and being substantially easier, say you are asked to do 2 large number multiplication based on a number you calculated earlier but you had got that part wrong and instead of getting say 55489 you got 10. What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? I think adding an example to elaborate on the sub reddit point would be a good way to demonstrate the difference that is described with an error that makes the question 'easier' or not. Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know! connecting to other pages is something I had forgotten about and something I will need to do as well BrandonS23 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not think this article states clearly that the error introduced in an early step is used as an input to the later steps. ECF allows use of the incorrect input to be used in later steps, if the later answers are correct for the incorrect input marks are awarded. This is stated in citation 3, but not in the main body of the text
 * As ECF has been a long standing topic within schools, why not focus on that, rather than a local policy change at newcastle university. The bulk of this article seems to be about the implementation of ECF at newcastle, not about ECF M a newell (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback from User Albacore218
What does the article (or section) do well?

I think this article does well in documenting the usage of ECF and explaining what it is.

What changes would you suggest overall?

- You should break up your article into sections with headers, as this formatting would conform to standards.

- Lines such as "Although the principle of ECF is relatively straightforward," and "The interpretation here is that ECF should only be applied" are too opinionated

- "This year, Forrest et al conducted " Should just read 2022

- The article on Double Jeopardy is purely in the legal context and is confusing.

- Unsure if citing a 2-upvote post is noteworthy

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

I'd like to see more documented debate, potentially from schools or professors, about the merits of ECF. It would be nice to see more details on Newcastle University's School of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics and the result of the proposal.

'''Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know!'''

- I plan to include more links to existing wikipedia articles in my page.

Albacore218 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)