I've done quick formatting fixes and don't know when I will have time for copyedit (better not count on me). The article needs trimming of excessive details and rephrasing of unencyclopedic tone (like "we consider", "we will see later", etc.). The original is written as a review article for a scientific journal rather than an encyclopedic entry. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I am going through your fixes and do appreciate them. Thanks a million. I will go through the highlighted weak areas myself. Thanks.Emekadavid (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Confidence interval: for this I am assuming that there is a certain confidence that the value falls in the range. Take a look at Confidence interval and you will see this sentence: "In applied practice, confidence intervals are typically stated at the 95% confidence level." so that is what I suspect the sources were saying, without me consulting them. Usually the % could be assumed and the numbers presented as x±y instead. This will cut down verbosity. French is already pretty verbose, so this translation carries the style to English. This means it can be much more compact. I may not have changed all those 5% yet though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am quite sure that 5% is wrong. But perhaps we do not need to say it as it would be the expected confidence anyway. It could be a matter of usage in French. For example in English we would give a percentage discount (20% off) but in Chinese the equivalent is the parts per ten of the original price (8 parts). I have not studied statistics in French though. Materialscientist might be able to convince you about using 95%. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)