User talk:Jacob Rampino

Hello, Jacob Rampino, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ottoman electoral law, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Forest inventory, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic title error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Jacob Rampino! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Natural language processing task force, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I mistyped your name in the ping at Talk:Mississippian period (archaeological)#Incorrect disambiguator, so thought I would ping you here. See that section for a minor change to the article title.

Also -- in the move discussion, you asked whether WP:COMMONNAME applied to laypeople or academics. Quoting WP:COMMONNAME:

{{tq|the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)}.

It's not which readers will find it commonly-understood, but what is common in the sources. — hike395 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I pointed this out in the thread. Jacob Rampino (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 19 § Florida Water Management District Categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jacob Rampino (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

@Jacob Rampino Is this article B-class ready? Do you think this article has potential for GA nomination in the near future (a quick review on the B/GA criteria would be very great for me to improve it further)? Thank you very much for your time and reviews.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say it is certainly C-class at least. For the B-Class criteria:

• Referencing and citations: Y
• Coverage and accuracy: N
• Structure: Y
• Grammar: Y
• Supporting materials: N
• Accessibility: N

The citations are reliable and used throughout.

Coverage and accuracy doesn’t meet B-class because the article omits tooling (e.g. Opacus, TensorFlow Privacy, JAX-Privacy), ε/δ examples, and a clear technical breakdown of the algorithm itself, such as structured pseudocode. The low diversity of sources doesn’t give a sense of the wider DP-SGD literature. This is especially true of applications, the "Applications and challenges" section names relevant domains like healthcare and cybersecurity, but mostly repeats the lead rather than going through specific examples within those domains.

Grammar and structure are robust.

Supporting materials fails B-class because the article has no images, diagrams, tables, or pseudocode at all. This is a step by step algorithm involving gradient clipping and noise addition, so a diagram or algorithm box would normally be expected to help readers follow the process.

Accessibility fails B-class because the article relies on specific technical terminology, like Rényi divergence, moments accountant, L2 norm clipping, etc., without plain-language explanation that would help a non-specialist reader. Several sections assume familiarity with differential privacy and optimization concepts, which makes the article harder to follow for readers outside the field. This criterion is usually the hardest to achieve for technical articles like this.

Sorry for the delayed response! Jacob Rampino (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I will start addressing these issues. Thank you very much! 16dvnk (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

(1/n) Alright, I have finally stepped aside from a complex dispute, and I can start addressing these issues. Special thanks to the extensive review. I will first address the coverage issues.

Details:

• Coverage and accuracy: This part makes sense; I did minimal research and only started with a narrow selection of sources. Will include Opacus etc... Edit: this part is addressed

• Structured pseudocode: Turns out, the Abadi et al. paper already has one, where I have overlooked. Added it in.

• Opacus: Added one small paragraph that should be due-weight, but if not, I can expand it in the future, but I could not find many reliable secondary sources about it.

• TensorFlow Privacy: This was harder to find, but eventually I have finally found a paper about it. Done.

• JAX-Privacy: Similar to Opacus and TensorFlow Privacy. Done. I have also found an additional bridging source stating that these 3 methods are "common", which is useful to the article.

• Applications:

I have found 2 applications, including healthcare applications and cybersecurity applications:

• Healthcare applications: A peer reviewed paper about clinical strokes, with a 93% accuracy. I found it useful and I added it in.

• Cybersecurity applications: Another peer reviewed paper caught my eye. Not much to say here. Done. Lead: Updated to reflect everything.

With all these changes It seems like the coverage issues are mostly addressed. Maybe some minor polish is needed, but I will go through those in the next cycle. Fixes for other issues are pending. 16dvnk (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

P.S. I might have to move my response here to the PR? Not sure how this works, since I am relatively new to this process. 16dvnk (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

(2/n) Supporting materials:

My previous articles did not have any supporting materials at all, because it was unnecessary. This is relatively new to me, but I will try my best here.

• Pseudocode: Added. I tried my best to follow the MOS for this, but I may stand corrected since I have no profession in writing pseudocode.
• Images: I initially created an svg, but then I decided a table would be clearer.
• Tables: Included in the Description. I do not see any other place to add one. Done.

The support materials should be addressed, but I have to admit I am new with this. I may stand corrected. The Accessibility issues will be addressed next turn. Thank you for your attention. 16dvnk (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

(3/3) Accessibility:

This should be relatively easy. Let me pinpoint some areas:

• Moments accountant (and RDP): Defined what a moments accountant is. Then, I also defined what kurtosis and skewness is (which probably does not need a source according to WP:OR). Also defined RDP, with explaining what an RD is.
• Description: Defined gradient and mini-batch (which does not need a source with the same reasons as above). Also defined subsampling etc. All terms are explained.
• Lead: Defined terms like non-convex, privacy budgets, gradients, etc.
• Software implementations: Explained optimizer.
• Applications and challenges: Explained F1-score, memory overhead, etc.
• Research directions: Explained lr, budget allocation and empirical privacy auditing.
• In the code: Explained loss function. Updated from "text" to "wikitext" to make the bolding work.
• Fixed some typos

With this copy edit, it seems like it is more accessible that before. The only question is if we need citations for some of the definitions, or if we should put those in footnotes, but other than that, there appears to be no major term that users may not understand. I may stand corrected.

With that, it seems like I am done with this round of peer review, as I do not find any other glaring issues. Thank you for your extensive review!

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

All great stuff! If you want to copy some of this over to the PR for others to see and give their own feedback on you can, but you can keep it open or close the PR whenever you like. Jacob Rampino (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jacob Rampino Sorry to bother you, but does the article reach the "supporting materials" criteria? My previous articles did not need those materials, so I want a little more feedback on that. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If you’d like a second opinion, posting a request at WP:ASSESS/REQ or closing the PR and opening a nomination at WP:GAN would probably be the best path. Jacob Rampino (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

_{(P.S. Of course, if you would like to re-evaluate the article on B class or potential GA, I am welcome to that :D)} 16dvnk (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)