Talk:Limit of distributions

Technical
Is the article really *inappropriately* technical, as opposed to being merely overly technical? I think the change to the lead addressed the concerns raised at User_talk:TakuyaMurata. In the current form, the article should be accessible to the readers who know distributions. If more changes need to be made, such necessary changes has to be spelled out explicitly. —- Taku (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A fundamentally technical topic can only be made so un-technical. The guideline to keep in mind is, I think, WP:ONELEVELDOWN. I've moved the formulae out of the lede and reworked the prose a little to make it emphasize the concept rather than the notation, which we now introduce in the "Definition" section. The problem now is not one of being "too technical" but of being brief and somewhat textbookish in style. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahh, yes, I agree the prose is more preferable especially in the first sentence (and thank you for the edit, which should help). —- Taku (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of assistance. Further expanding the relevance of dipole would be a good next step, I think ("dipole" can mean lots of things, after all). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though I confess I don't know enough physics to expand that bit. If I remember correct, the example of the section has an application to this kind of stuff (maybe I can find refs later). -- Taku (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)