Talk:Robinson–Foulds metric

POV check
A number of edits in the last year have made the tone of the article quite harsh (e.g., "crude and biased" in the opening sentence). While I'm sure there is scientific merit to these criticisms, it doesn't seem in line with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Maybe the article should say things like "this metric as been criticized for XYZ" without such a harsh tone. The edits may have been made by the author of the paper "Information theoretic Generalized Robinson-Foulds metrics for comparing phylogenetic trees," which is heavily used as a source. The author is certainly well-qualified to speak on this topic, but there's a concern that the critical tone may benefit the new work on an improved version of Robinson-Foulds. (Which should certainly be mentioned in the article--new updates are great, it's just neutrality that seems like a possible issue.) PizzaLizzard (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree this article in it's current state is not in-line with Wikipedia's ideals of neutrality. I suggest leaving criticisms and alternative measures to a later subsection in the article. The start of the article must simply describe RF without getting bogged-down into a contentious debate on what is the 'best' measure (when I'm sure there probably is no one single best measure that fits all possible circumstances). Metacladistics (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikified
This article needs a great deal of work. The references need to be made into inline citations, there should be more sections, and the article itself should have links elsewhere. Way beyond what I am able to do, on a subject that I know little about. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've cleaned it up, but not added anything new. Pyrotec (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the paper last week and this page was completely wrong. It mentioned (A+B)/2; I've clarified the procedure, and added some further content. I am in no means able to meet wikipedia standards of citation and formating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.249.88 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)