Talk:Multivariate adaptive regression spline

Overall style
This article is quite impressive. However, it reads too much like a how-to manual or a textbook. I may have a go to clean that up. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just read this article - and I found it extremely well written and clear. One of the best examples of why wikipedia rocks. Thanks!--Achristoffersen (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it reads like a manual or textbook, but I think that is the reason it is an accessible explanation and a great Wikipedia article. Other explanations I have read on blogs or in textbooks is not as clear as this one. I believe it should be left as is. Fairybluebirb (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's a great article, and wouldn't change a thing. I expected to have to dedicate at least an hour of jumping back and forward between definitions in other articles, but I walk away after 20 minutes with a good grasp of the subject. It guided me through clear, concise examples, with an accessible but not oversimplified explanation, and I found the tone a pleasure to read. It reads more like a seasoned teacher than like a scientific article (of which I've had my fill these last few days), without sacrificing seriousness. Thank you! 213.245.23.234 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Issue
The article is not in violation of copyright:

The Copyvio Report reports similarities to https://www.slideshare.net/Eklavyagupta/multivariate-adaptive-regression-splines-71969518. That web page was published in Feb 2017, as stated on the web page.

The original text for this Wikipedia article "Multivariate adaptive regression splines" was published in July 2008.

By comparing these dates, we see that the Slideshare web page mentioned above copied the Wikipedia article, not the other way round.

Stephen Milborrow (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed; similar considerations apply to the source mentioned by the IP, Jeffrey Strickland (2014), Predictive Analytics using R, Lulu Inc. I've left a backwardscopy tag for that one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Error in the example formula?
I think the formula is missing some terms just before max(0, 200 - vis). The formula should be [...] 0.016 max(0, wind - 7) + c max(0, 200 - vis) where c is a small coefficient (about 0.035 if I had to guess). TyrHexFF (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * My bad I was wrong. TyrHexFF (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)