Talk:Scheffé's method

Assumptions
The page does not state what assumptions are required for the test to be statistically valid. e.g. Are the data expected to be normally distributed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.67.108 (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Notation
What are all these variables? Shouldn't these be defined somewhere, or is it expected that a common reader would know their meaning based upon common statistical conventions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.16.40 (talk • contribs)


 * Apparently it assumes some knowledge of conventional notation in multiple comparisons. Certainly the variables should get defined. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree with above. "Y" is not defined, and should not be allowed in an expression w/o a definition. It will occur to some that $$ \bar{Y}_i$$ should be interpreted as the empirical mean of a set of measurements from the population whose mean is $$ \mu_i$$, but without a definition, Y is completely meaningless. Chafe66 (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also $$\hat{\sigma}_e^2$$ undefined. Terrible. Chafe66 (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright
The line "Scheffé's method is a single-step multiple comparison procedure which applies to the set of estimates of all possible contrasts among the factor level means, not just the pairwise differences considered by the Tukey–Kramer method." seems to have been plagiarized from the Engineers Statistics Handbook (http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section4/prc472.htm) it should probably be paraphrased and cited. I'd do it but I don't have any understanding of this concept... 16 Feb 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.66.88 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is covered by the standard copyright notice that appears at the very bottom of the article. Melcombe (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Melcombe is incorrect. The copyright notice says what other people are allowed to do with Wikipedia content.  It doesn't say that we are allowed to steal other people's copyright material and post it on Wikipedia.  I suggest the original poster could have simply wrapped the offending text in a quotation and added the citation, if they were unsure how or whether to paraphrase (or even delete).  However, after checking the link I cannot find verbatim plagiarism, so I have not changed the article.  —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk))

Example
How about a short example? —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC))