463:
important in technical articles where non-expert users may need to familiarize themselves with a lot of definitions and vocabulary. Most importantly, the article doesn't even explain the very basic facts about best response - that there is usually not a single best response, but in fact the best response is to pick a particular response at random, using certain optimal probabilities to decide between particular responses. There is no way I can see that a person who didn't know this already would grasp it from the article, it seems to be simply assumed between the three line non-technical lead and the reaction correspondence section; those who do know that probably know most of the rest of the article already! So, a stronger foundational section would be good. Inline references would be great. The article is also heavily lacking in information about who discovered what, and when, other than the name-dropping of Nash at the beginning. More information on the history would help to make this article comprehensive.
732:. I think suggestions from previous reviews/comments have been met. The references are fine and I think the article is well written. As some one without any knowledge of game theory I found the article insightful and broad enough at least to explain the subject in relation to other background material and theory. Im afraid suggestions for improvement are a little thin. I would consider trying to expand the article as much as you can with as many more references as you can (if this is possible). I would also recommend the possibilities of adding some new sections such as a history section? Is John Nash responsible for the theory or who first attributed it to him in a published work etc. Secondly is there any criticism of the theory? Are their published works that have called to expand some concepts or to challenge it? These all just suggestions and might not be feasible but I do hopey youll consider them. Thanks and good work.
187:
519:
getting straight in to the stag game (without explaining what the stag game is, or indeed providing a wikilink). Something explicit ought to be said about probabilities - a reader not conversant with the topic may be left confused otherwise. I suspect that there is actually enough here that can be said in a non-technical way (as it might appear in a Martin
Gardner book, say) that there is room for both a more extensive non-technical explanation and the full technical definitions in the article.
177:
156:
1062:. In that case, saying a strategy is a 'best response' doesn't say anything about its impact at the current decision node; instead, it means that the strategy, viewed over the whole game tree, maximizes the player's payoff taking other players' strategies as given. Therefore the word 'immediate' seems misleading to me in the first line of the article, so I'll remove it. And it would be helpful to be more precise in the discussion overall. --
265:
1008:
808:
794:
74:
53:
940:
924:
914:
859:
845:
835:
988:
964:
890:
880:
974:
22:
324:
Bravo Pete! Those look really nice. I move them around slightly and added the __NOEDITSECTION__ tag because the edit section tags were placed in strange places. If you don't beat me to it, maybe I'll play around with them tomorrow. If you want to have the caption I think you can make a table that
494:
I'm actually not sure about this. Mixed strategy nash equilibria occur because a player is indifferent between at least two of her actions and mixing over them is as good as anything else. But the mixture is no more optimal for her (given her opponents strategies) than playing a pure strategy. In
598:
There is definetively a LOT of room for improvement; the article just jumps into the correspondence without explictly stating what the correspondence are trying to asses. I think a introduction to a game (not the prisoners dilema BTW) will give a higher insight of a what a correspondence is drawing
582:
The inline citations are going to be tough, so much of this material is so basic that specific citations for specific sentences will be difficult, giving up on this one for now. Gentle introduction to background material, I've dealt with this here mostly by linking to the background material, I'm
462:
I disagree, I think this article definitely needs more work. The stag game is discussed without actually being introduced - that would make sense if this article was being read as part of a series, but articles have to stand alone too. Quite a few mathematical terms aren't linked - link density is
518:
I do apologise, I mangled up what I was trying to say in an effort to explain myself in a non-technical way... there clearly ought to be something about this in the article explaining this. At the moment though there is an unhealthy jump from the non-technical introduction into some meaty maths,
746:
This assessment surprises me. There has been very little change to this article since August 2006, and the article still does not address the inaccessibility concerns raised in the previous GA reviews. The lead is (I apologise to say) miserable as a summary of the article. There are other minor
472:
Having said that, much of the content is good, it's good to see the diagrams, and there is a reference section. Still, the article lacks coherency for the reasons given above. I think I'd be happy to pass this as GA if the coherency issues were resolved, though preferably with the addition of a
652:
I personally agree with the reviewers: inline citations are better. One tends to check out footnotes and it is really frustrating to see that they are all citations. I will also look into some original references. The textbooks cited could be mentioned somewhere as additional read.
491:
Most importantly, the article doesn't even explain the very basic facts about best response - that there is usually not a single best response, but in fact the best response is to pick a particular response at random, using certain optimal probabilities to decide between particular
747:
concerns about the formatting of references and the lack of historical material and/or background. I will attempt to improve these aspects over the next couple of days, but I doubt I will be able to bring the article up to GA standard myself. If the article still does not meet the
672:
I ranked this a B-class since it failed the GA. Personally, I think it's as good as many ga articles. We're free to rank it an A-class article even if it doesn't pass GA, but I thought that might be a bit presumptuous :) Anyway, if someone wants to change it, feel free.
370:
Put in dominated strategy RC, then started in on payoff asymmetric stuff. I think the wording dealing with dominated strategies (dimension being probability of playing move 1) gets ugly. A bit too tired to make it more digestable, feel free to take a crack at it anyone.
473:
history section. Neither of these would require that much work compared to the effort expended on the article already but would add to it very significantly. Inline referencing would be fantastic but it's quite a bit of work and not really necessary for GA status.
587:
etc articles within this article... Increased link density: I think I've gone to town on this, in fact I've largely tried to address the other two issues by increasing link density. Thoughts? worth another go at GA?
1035:. Turns out the example given of a smoothed best response is the same response function used in Logit QRE. I was leaning to re-format the math here to match the standard presentation for QRE. Any thoughts?
138:
243:
698:
to have another look, I just can't seem to figure out the best way to expand without distracting from the point being made. Feel free to restore the tag if it still needs to be there.
358:
Nice fix-up! Thanks for the table tip too. I may make a figure for dominated strategies, then some text to qualify the assumptions made about games begin symmetrical. Cheers,
528:
I dig it. Thanks a bunch for looking into this article. I'm sure that either Pete Hurd or I will make many of the changes you suggest in the next few weeks. Thanks again! --
1017:
The lead is not a summary of the article and the prose is incomprehensible and terrible. I was not able to fix the other concerns I raised, and so I am delisting the article.
635:
say "the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory". I'd really like to have them here, but I can't see how to fit them in without a big shoehorn.
314:
Should combine figs 1 to 3 as in fig 4, I'd like to have them not float (equals not thumbnail) but then I loose the captioning and figure title ability, I think...
381:
Aha! Adding center to the tag for the images keeps the text from wrapping. I have done that with the two big images, and it looks better I think. --best, kevin
1090:
128:
539:
Hey, thanks for the positve feedback. I hope to get on this RSN (up to my teeth in work, and the next few weeks is going to hectic with new baby) Cheers
1100:
233:
684:
why the expand tag relly to be honest it's a great articale but i think you need more information on
Coordination games besides that it looks great
495:
fact, I think it's the case that if it's ever a best response to mix between two actions it is also a best response to play a pure strategy. --
209:
1095:
1085:
772:
290:
766:
600:
200:
161:
104:
100:
96:
92:
81:
58:
980:
1105:
616:
It looks good, I think. I'm a bit busy for the next few days, but if I get a chance I'll give it a more careful once over. --
282:
851:
1032:
33:
800:
436:
276:
1058:
normal form game. But the concept of 'best response' is more general than that; it can also be applied to an
1054:
I'm concerned that this whole article appears to be written under the assumption that we are talking about a
821:
604:
1067:
1018:
756:
432:
39:
186:
448:
21:
1059:
208:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
394:
338:
192:
176:
155:
1063:
1040:
286:
950:
520:
474:
464:
285:
at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
748:
733:
729:
632:
440:
899:
752:
712:
699:
636:
589:
540:
415:
372:
359:
315:
1079:
1055:
390:
334:
1036:
583:
not sure how else to address this without having to replicate the majority of the
325:
surrounds the picture and then put the caption text in the table. --best, kevin
578:
needs greater link density to help with mathematical concepts for the uninitiated
695:
685:
205:
86:
439:; the good article designation will be assigned when the citations are added. —
85:, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Knowledge's articles related to
654:
182:
584:
572:
73:
52:
728:
Hi I have reviewed the article and think the article meets criteria at
1071:
1044:
1021:
759:
736:
715:
702:
688:
679:
657:
639:
622:
608:
592:
543:
534:
523:
501:
477:
467:
456:
418:
405:
375:
362:
349:
318:
431:
As much as I can possibly understand this subject, it looks good. A
751:, I will delist it. An alternative would be to take the article to
259:
15:
435:
would be more helpful here. The only thing lacking is inline
1031:
I'm going to try to figure out a pretty way to link this to
281:, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
564:
Ok, three basic comments from the first GA nom feedback
708:
298:
571:
needs gentle introduction to background material (eg.
204:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
707:His response ("no the article looks great now") is
969:(lack of images does not in itself exclude GA)
8:
954:, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
150:
47:
755:, and any editor is welcome to do that.
152:
49:
19:
599:at every point of a given domain... (
7:
1091:High-importance game theory articles
694:I removed the expand tag, and asked
198:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
973:
14:
1101:Mid-priority mathematics articles
218:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
113:Knowledge:WikiProject Game theory
1006:
986:
972:
962:
938:
922:
912:
888:
878:
857:
843:
833:
806:
792:
263:
221:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
185:
175:
154:
116:Template:WikiProject Game theory
72:
51:
20:
987:
963:
889:
879:
840:(citations to reliable sources)
238:This article has been rated as
133:This article has been rated as
1:
680:04:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
658:22:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
609:17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
212:and see a list of open tasks.
1096:B-Class mathematics articles
1086:B-Class game theory articles
1033:Quantal response equilibrium
1027:Smoothed best response - QRE
1007:
939:
923:
913:
858:
844:
834:
807:
793:
419:18:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
406:18:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
376:06:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
689:02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
640:17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
623:17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
593:17:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
363:03:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
350:03:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
319:00:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
1122:
737:11:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
703:03:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
1072:07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
1022:20:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
760:21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
716:20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
631:FWIW, I noticed that the
237:
170:
132:
67:
46:
1045:12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
560:Responses to GA feedback
544:20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
535:19:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
524:19:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
502:02:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
478:00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
468:00:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
296:Review: July 14, 2007. (
244:project's priority scale
79:This article is part of
1050:Unmentioned assumption?
919:(all significant views)
782:reasonably well written
633:GA candidate guidelines
457:03:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
201:WikiProject Mathematics
82:WikiProject Game theory
1106:Delisted good articles
979:(non-free images have
959:(tagged and captioned)
568:needs inline citations
414:Very flashy! Thanks!
28:This article is rated
909:(fair representation)
900:neutral point of view
868:broad in its coverage
433:Knowledge:Peer review
427:Good Article feedback
283:good article criteria
89:. We need your help!
224:mathematics articles
119:game theory articles
1060:extensive form game
981:fair use rationales
753:Good article review
817:factually accurate
193:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
711:on my talk page.
397:
341:
307:
306:
303:
289:; it may then be
258:
257:
254:
253:
250:
249:
149:
148:
145:
144:
107:
1113:
1010:
1009:
990:
989:
976:
975:
966:
965:
942:
941:
926:
925:
916:
915:
892:
891:
882:
881:
861:
860:
847:
846:
837:
836:
810:
809:
796:
795:
455:
451:
447:
443:
404:
401:
389:
387:
384:
348:
345:
333:
331:
328:
301:
299:Reviewed version
295:
267:
266:
260:
226:
225:
222:
219:
216:
195:
190:
189:
179:
172:
171:
166:
158:
151:
139:importance scale
121:
120:
117:
114:
111:
91:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1076:
1075:
1052:
1029:
897:It follows the
875:(major aspects)
744:
726:
670:
562:
453:
449:
445:
441:
429:
402:
399:
385:
382:
346:
343:
329:
326:
312:
297:
264:
223:
220:
217:
214:
213:
191:
184:
164:
135:High-importance
118:
115:
112:
109:
108:
62:High‑importance
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1119:
1117:
1109:
1108:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1078:
1077:
1051:
1048:
1028:
1025:
1016:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
993:
992:
991:
945:
944:
943:
929:
928:
927:
895:
894:
893:
864:
863:
862:
813:
812:
811:
777:
776:
743:
740:
725:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
669:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
645:
644:
643:
642:
626:
625:
613:
612:
580:
579:
576:
569:
561:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
483:
482:
481:
480:
428:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
409:
408:
368:
367:
366:
365:
353:
352:
311:
308:
305:
304:
294:
268:
256:
255:
252:
251:
248:
247:
236:
230:
229:
227:
210:the discussion
197:
196:
180:
168:
167:
159:
147:
146:
143:
142:
131:
125:
124:
122:
97:Fix a red link
90:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1118:
1107:
1104:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1094:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1081:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1049:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1026:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1004:
1000:
999:
997:
994:
984:
982:
970:
960:
956:
955:
953:
952:
946:
937:
936:
934:
930:
920:
910:
906:
905:
903:
901:
896:
886:
876:
872:
871:
869:
865:
855:
853:
841:
831:
827:
826:
824:
823:
818:
814:
804:
802:
790:
786:
785:
783:
779:
778:
775:for criteria)
774:
770:
768:
764:
763:
762:
761:
758:
754:
750:
741:
739:
738:
735:
731:
723:
717:
714:
710:
706:
705:
704:
701:
697:
693:
692:
691:
690:
687:
682:
681:
678:
676:
667:
659:
656:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
641:
638:
634:
630:
629:
628:
627:
624:
621:
619:
615:
614:
610:
606:
602:
597:
596:
595:
594:
591:
586:
577:
574:
570:
567:
566:
565:
559:
545:
542:
538:
537:
536:
533:
531:
527:
526:
525:
522:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
503:
500:
498:
493:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
479:
476:
471:
470:
469:
466:
461:
460:
459:
458:
452:
444:
438:
434:
426:
420:
417:
413:
412:
411:
410:
407:
396:
392:
380:
379:
378:
377:
374:
364:
361:
357:
356:
355:
354:
351:
340:
336:
323:
322:
321:
320:
317:
309:
300:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:
278:
272:
271:Best response
269:
262:
261:
245:
241:
235:
232:
231:
228:
211:
207:
203:
202:
194:
188:
183:
181:
178:
174:
173:
169:
163:
160:
157:
153:
140:
136:
130:
127:
126:
123:
106:
102:
98:
94:
88:
84:
83:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1064:Rinconsoleao
1053:
1030:
1019:Geometry guy
1015:
1002:
995:
978:
968:
958:
948:
932:
918:
908:
898:
884:
874:
867:
849:
839:
830:(references)
829:
820:
816:
798:
788:
781:
765:
757:Geometry guy
745:
727:
683:
677:
674:
671:
620:
617:
581:
563:
532:
529:
499:
496:
490:
430:
369:
313:
277:good article
275:
274:
270:
240:Mid-priority
239:
199:
165:Mid‑priority
134:
80:
40:WikiProjects
675:best, kevin
618:best, kevin
601:87.86.38.62
530:best, kevin
521:TheGrappler
497:best, kevin
475:TheGrappler
465:TheGrappler
291:renominated
215:Mathematics
206:mathematics
162:Mathematics
110:Game theory
101:Add content
87:Game theory
59:Game theory
1080:Categories
822:verifiable
734:LordHarris
492:responses.
1003:Pass/Fail
949:contains
885:(focused)
742:GA review
713:Pete.Hurd
700:Pete.Hurd
637:Pete.Hurd
590:Pete.Hurd
585:Stag hunt
573:Stag hunt
541:Pete.Hurd
437:citations
416:Pete.Hurd
373:Pete.Hurd
360:Pete.Hurd
316:Pete.Hurd
287:please do
1056:repeated
749:criteria
730:WP:WIAGA
391:Kzollman
335:Kzollman
105:Weigh in
1037:Cretog8
996:Overall
789:(prose)
724:GA Pass
668:B-class
310:Figures
242:on the
137:on the
93:Join in
30:B-class
951:images
933:stable
931:It is
902:policy
866:It is
815:It is
780:It is
769:review
696:Oo7565
686:Oo7565
273:was a
36:scale.
771:(see
655:Koczy
575:game)
1068:talk
1041:talk
819:and
773:here
709:here
605:talk
450:talk
395:Talk
339:Talk
129:High
947:It
801:MoS
442:Rob
234:Mid
1082::
1070:)
1043:)
1005::
1001:a
998::
985::
977:c
971::
967:b
961::
957:a
935:.
921::
917:b
911::
907:a
904:.
887::
883:b
877::
873:a
870:.
856::
852:OR
848:c
842::
838:b
832::
828:a
825:.
805::
797:b
791::
787:a
784:.
767:GA
673:--
611:).
607:)
393:|
337:|
302:).
103:|
99:|
95:|
1066:(
1039:(
983:)
854:)
850:(
803:)
799:(
603:(
454:)
446:(
403:·
400:·
398:·
388:·
386:·
383:·
347:·
344:·
342:·
332:·
330:·
327:·
293:.
246:.
141:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
