Wikipedia:Peer review/Six Sigma/archive1

Six sigma
The section "Why six?" has been edited into a state that's sloppy in technique and fairly incoherent. It starts out by trying to explain what "six sigma" has 3.4 defects per million"; it does that fairly decently according to this biased judge. Then it gets argumentative over the matter of the 1.5 sigma long-term drift of an industrial process.

The argument at present uses terms that aren't defined or cross-referenced in the article. And it talks of adding 1.5 sigma to a 4.5 sigma result; I for one don't know what in real life this refers to. People who know something about statistical quality control could usefully look at the article and make it make more sense.

Also, I removed a paragraph that seemed to be utter nonsense statistically. Perhaps I was missing the point; an independent check would be useful. Dandrake 23:54, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)