User talk:Randy.l.goodrich/sandbox

Peer Review
What does the article do well? I think the lead section is well written and helps me understand the concept. What is one thing that can be done to improve the article? It would be helpful to include examples of this concept being used in research. I only have access to a public library, and did some online searching. It seems like there is limited information on this topic, which might be what you are finding. Here are 3 articles I found on the topic. Feel free to use them or not use them. I did not read the articles. 1.MAX-MOERBECK, W. et al. A method for the estimation of the significance of cross-correlations in unevenly sampled red-noise time series. 2.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, [s. l.], v. 445, n. 1, p. 437–459, 2014. 3.GERINGER-SAMETH, A.; KOUSHIAPPAS, S. M. Exclusion of Canonical Weakly Interacting Massive Particles by Joint Analysis of Milky Way Dwarf Galaxies with Data from the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope. Physical Review Letters, [s. l.], v. 107, n. 24, p. 241303-1-241303–5, 2011. BARLOW, R. A note on estimating errors from the likelihood function. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research Section A, [s. l.], v. 550, n. 1/2, p. 392–396, 2005. What changes would you suggest? I would draw out some of the important points you have made so far to make them stand out. It is important that this is a frequentist approach (not Bayesian or Fisher). Highlight this more. It is important that the probability is zero and one. Highlight this more. It might be helpful to add some graphics if possible to give a visual understanding of the concept. Are the sources out of date? Do the links work? Are the sources reliable? It looks like you have some good sources. All the links worked for me. Although you have some dated work, I think it is important to cite these sources, especially since Neyman wrote some of them; but like you already mentioned, it is important to get some other authors besides Neyman himself. The Jedi Math Squirrel (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)The Jedi Math Squirrel

Dylan's Peer Review
I would say that the article's strong points are in its depth, especially with regard to the mathematical and statistical theory. It believe it goes far enough on that front. The balance coverage is also good, with several varying sources. The structure of the article could be improved by making explicit sections such as "Intro", "Definition" , "Example" etc. The other main suggestion I have is that the article could have one good clear example. Examples are great for elucidating concepts that are rather abstract and theoretical. In practice data is almost always involved, and in this case it definitely is, so a numerical example I would find very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.58.151 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ernestina's Peer Review
I had no idea about Neyman's Construction but after reading the article I got know that Neyman's Construction is about confidence intervals. A lead section to give a general idea about Neyman's construction in plain word if possible before the definition will be great. The article is balanced with diverse references but the references do not much the citations. In that, when I click on the citation in the article it does not much any of the references. It will be great to cite the statements in the article so we know exactly where you got the information. The article does not persuade the reader into a particular position, but rather gives a clear overview of Neyman's construction. (Ernestina1728 (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC))