Talk:Stochastic dynamic programming

Addressing Template:Technical - explanation missing
I have found Template:Technical added to the Stochastic dynamic programming in. Unfortunately, no additional explanation was provided in the edit summary or on the talk page. Wikipedia guidance states: When adding this template, explain the issue in the edit summary or on the talk page. Without such explanation, editors with the knowledge to fix the issue often cannot address the issue as they do not know why the template was added in the first place. I understand that Stochastic dynamic programming material may appear complex, but this is just the nature of the matter and several other existing articles in cognate areas, e.g. Stochastic programming, feature comparable or higher level of complexity.

To address the issue I have added a motivating example targeting a layman audience, but in absence of further explanation and in line with guidance provided in WP:TECHNICAL, I believe it is appropriate at this point to remove the template.

If you believe there are further Template:Technical issues please explain these issues in this talk page. I will do my best to address them.

--Dr.roberto.rossi (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - My apologies for the lazy flagging earlier on. Frankly the vast majority of this page makes very little sense to me as a member of the great unwashed masses, but I can appreciate that its technicality is born, at least in part, out of necessity. The example section is appreciated, so thanks there. Perhaps an expansion of the lead paragraph using less technical jargon. For example: "a branch of stochastic programming that takes a functional equation approach to the discovery of optimum policies for this class of problems" may be entirely accurate I am none the wiser what this means. I suspect this is where my technical flag came from - a holistic generalisation that very little of the article made sense to me as an Arts graduate.Zakhx150 (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * - Many thanks for your clarification. I have now tried to remove as much as possible jargon from the first paragraph. Where is has not been possible, I linked relevant pages that provide necessary background. --Dr.roberto.rossi (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)