Talk:Response surface methodology

There are no linked references in "Special Geometries" despite in-line citations. The are no references in the "Practical Considerations" section -- moreover, the caveat about statistical models seems unnecessary (otherwise it ought to be applied to all articles involving statistical methods), unless there is a specific controversy about the method -- in which case, this controversy should be discussed in further detail and referenced. --128.237.250.167 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is indeed work to be done.
 * However, I am satisfied that I have provided reliable references. The reader who has trouble finding Atkinson or Kiefer in the references needs help reading rather than in-line citations. The intelligent reader will pick up Atkinson et alia or Wu/etc. or Box/Draper ASAP.
 * The field of RSM has a funny literature, because of the influence of George Box, who like his father in law liked to bash "mathematical statisticians", and issue homilies about the art of modeling. Box is such a great writer and lethal rhetorician that his followers have tended to parrot him, leading to stereotypical worries in American textbooks about models.
 * (Most of this was said earlier, much better, and with a proper concern for truth by Charles Sanders Peirce. Nominalism is a parasite that continues to stunt British statistical "theory", which has a wildly subjectivist emphasis on "models" and a failure to discuss scientific progress.)  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the second external link has faded, FYI
The second link goes to Gent University in Germany, I presume, and is non-functional: "The requested page could not be found." I'm not sure it was the best possibility anyway. I'll try to find another. What do you think? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What the heck is going on with this article's formatting? It doesn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.96.2 (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This article needs work!
All in all, I think it's not really helpful and would love to see it reworked. Or at least but a note on it that states that there are issues with the article. 153.96.93.7 (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The references are not properly linked
 * Some keywords seem arbitrarily thrown in
 * It doesn't really introduce a reader to the subject but poses more questions than it answers.