Wikipedia:Peer review/Game theory/archive1

Game theory
Hello all - This article has been substantially reworked from the former version. I would like any comments anyone has for how it can be improved. Particularly, I would like it to be readable by a wide audience and provide a fair and complete picture on how game theory is used. Please tell me if any part of the article does not do these things. Thanks you for looking into this page! --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 03:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have added that I brought this article here because it was suggested that this article might be up to Featured Article quality. I would love to here attitudes about whether we are at that level. --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 20:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well it's a good page and covers the subject nicely, but if the intent is to aim for a general audience then I think the page should be written at a High School vocabulary/education level. Words such as realizability, methodology, idealization, cognitive, contractarian, and so forth, would tend to put off lay audiences, as would comparable expressions. But that's just my opinion. Thanks. :) &mdash; RJH 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a good suggestion. I'll give the page a read and try to remove as many of those as possible.  There's always a trade-off with length of sentences, so I might leave some.  I may not get to it for a few days, but never fear I will!  Thanks for your suggestion! --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 15:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've gone through and corrected what I can. I can't think of another way to say this sentence: "Game theorist respond that while the assumptions they make do not always hold, they present a reasonable scientific idealization akin to the assumptions of models in physics."  Any suggestions? --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 20:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I took a shot at it: Game theorists respond by comparing their assumptions to those used in physics. Thus while their assumptions do not always hold, they can treat game theory as a reasonable scientific ideal akin to the models used by physicists. &mdash; RJH 16:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Bravo! I've replaced the sentence in the article.  Thanks RJH. --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 17:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Its very good. It could use applications to political science sub area. Also, Auman and Shelling are just the most recent in a (long?) list of Nobel Prize winners who use game theory.  Mostly, though, the introduction needs some filling out.  I always think that an article on the main page should make me want to read it due to an interesting or catchy opening paragraph.Smmurphy 05:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Smmurphy! I agree, I've been unhappy with the opening paragraph myself.  Every time I rework it, it always ends up too short or too long.  I have the philosopher's disease, I make anything I touch bland and academic :)  Anyone else want to give it a shot?  Even just a sketch would be great, I could fill in the details.  I also agree about the political science sub area.  I didn't add one because I really don't feel very competent in this area.  Its a real loss since game theory really took off in the 60s and 70s because of its application to military strategy.  In particular I think a lot of stuff happened at the RAND corp with respect to mutually assured destruction, but I don't really know what.  Can anybody point me to a nice reference text that would give me a quick overview? --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 17:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * hmm, as far as references to game theory in political science goes, many intro textbooks would have it, with Bruce Beuno de Mesquita's being the most notable (he brashly thinks an intro International Relations text can be based on game theory). But game theory (or rational choice, as it is sometimes called in a generalized way) permeates method in political science, from voting theory to corruption.  I'll try to write up a short summary this week (no promises on a daughter article, but it could happen).Smmurphy 08:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's great if you would write it! As it is, we don't have full articles for game theory in any other field so don't feel like you need to create one.  But if you want to... :)  I actually do know a little bit about voting theory, Don Saari is a regular contributor to a seminar I attend.  I plan to work on the intro section sometime soon.  --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 17:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I gave the intro the ol' college try. What do folks think? --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 04:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)