Talk:Quality control and genetic algorithms

Introduction

I reinstated the introduction, which isn't redundant as a anom user suggested. Every wikipedia article has to have such an introduction. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Systems Assessment

I removed the changes made in the WikiProject Systems Assessment by an anom user. This assessment is made by the WikiProjects, and is an comparisent with 2000 other articles. I guess the anom user doesn't understand the classification scheme. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest / notability

There seems to me a conflict of interest here. It seems the main contributon User:Aristides Hatjimihail has made three references towards his own work by Hatjimihail AT. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The two references have been removed. The remaining reference documents the first application of the GAs in the field of QCAristides Hatjimihail (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed. However I think this is not the way to solve this. I think I have been incomplete in my comment here. I don't care that much about the conflict of interest. More important is, that the article have no independent third party sources to verify the importance of this combined subject. Could you look into this some more? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Clinical Chemistry, a peer reviewed journal with impact factor of 4.803, is a reliable, independent third party source. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not what I meant, see Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RELIABLE. Combined articles like this, as far a I know, are hardly acceptable unless the combined term is notable enough. Now it seems to me the current text could as well be merged in one of those two separate articles or in both. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If Marcel Douwe Dekker is a Wikipedia editor and the article does not meet the Wikipedia Notability and Reliability criteria I ask him to remove it and to keep it only if it meets these criteria. Otherwise, I ask him to refer this matter to an editor.Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia senior editor, see my userpage User:Mdd, but this doesn't mean I can remove articles, whenever I feel like it. I will propose to merge this article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aristides, you are also an editor. Everybody here is an editor with an equal say. Conflict of interest is pretty clearly a problem here, but barring that we must come to a common agreement (a consensus) about whether the remaining link here constitutes a reliable source as defined by the two guidelines that MDD linked above. Aristides, you mentioned an "impact factor" of 4.8. Is that high? On the other hand, I don't think it matters. Which journal or journals has it been published in? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should try to come to a common agreement. But the Conflict of interest is not the only issue here. I question the notability of the whole article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability? You said earlier that you were questioning reliability. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC) My mistake. I misread your earlier post. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is a version of an article posted in our site I believe since 1997, presenting our published work on that subject (http://www,hcsl.com/GAsQC.htm). There have not been any financial projects related to that research, therefore there is not any financial conflict of interest. Anyway, the HCSL is an non profit research laboratory. On the other hand, I am proud that this is the first published application of the genetic algorithms in the field of the quality control, as you can easily verify searching any scientific database. The Clinical Chemistry, the journal I first published the research on the QC and GAs in 1993, is published by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and it is the journal with the highest impact factor in the field. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular year and it is used to evaluate its importance. The second citation that I added again is the presentation of the same subject in the Sixth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Regarding the "notability" of the subject, a search for ("quality control" AND "genetic algorithms") of the Scopus scientific database gives 347 articles published in scientific journals. A search in Google gives 16500 pages and in Google Scholar 3900 pages. It is remarkable that the first page of the Google search is this article, therefore I suggest - as the leading author, not as an editor - any unnecessary tags to be removed. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the credibility of the reference to our site (www.hcsl.com), this is the citation of the Web Watch of January 2002 of the Quality Progress, a journal of the American Society for Quality (ASQ): " ORGANIZATIONS. www.hcsl.com: The Hellenic Complex Systems Laboratory (HCSL) is a research laboratory focused on the transdisciplinary study of complex systems. Abstracts from recent publications, links and a glossary are all easily located on this simple site."Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Aristides says that the paper in question was published in Clinical Chemistry. If that is true, then is that enough to satisfy reliability? As for notability: have quality control and genetic algorithms received significant coverage in sources that are independent of Aristides? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with this content beeing in Wikipedia, but I do have a problem with this particular article. It could as well be explained in either two separate articles or both. Google scholar and Google books give no hits on the topic "quality control and genetic algorithms".

I am very much agains articles like this explaining the combination of two terms. There are already millions Wikipedia articles on individual items. If we accept these combined articles, we could easily add an other billion articles to Wikipedia.

I will propose this article to be deleted/merged so other Wikipians can give their opinion about this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact Google Books gives 638 books for ("quality control" and "genetic algorithms"). Some of them are referencing my article. And as I have written before a Google Scholar search for the same terms gives 3900 articles. Some of them are referencing my article as well.Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Some more improvement

Ok, the community has spoken, congratulations. I hope this will result in some more improvement. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I thank Marcel Douwe Dekker, but I do not feel like being congratulated. I have just tried to share part of my expertise through Wikipedia, in a concise and accurate way. I believe the verification issue has been resolved so I intend to remove the respective tag. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess you mean the tag in the reference section?! The whole article is verified all right, but normally every section of the articles should be referenced as well. At the moment it seems just one sentence is referenced..!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Although this is an article on the intersection of QC and GAs, referencing both quality control and genetic algorithm Wikipedia articles, I have added five general references and two external links about these two subjects.I have genaralized the QC section. I have removed the citations and the cleanup tag. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You added references which seems all right now. However, it seems this article still doesn't comply with my Wikipedia quality standards, because it lacks a general introduction. My point has been from the beginning, that if you start an article about "Quality control and genetic algorithms", you should explain about "Quality control and genetic algorithms".

First there is one Wikipedia standard I personally must have implemented in over 1000+, and I checked in over 5000+ articles:

1. The articles should start with the subject expressed in a bold text,
2. the articles subject should be explained in the first sentence, and
3. the field of study, the subject relates to, should be expressed in this first sentence.

And second. this article should explain about "Quality control and genetic algorithms", with these simple sentences like genetic "algorithms are often used in Quality control because....", and "Since...", and "for the first by....", "the purpose is...", "Alternative are ...".

Because of these reasons I normally put a {{Wikify}} tag on the article, if I can't supply the introduction myself. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the specific editing instructions by Marcel Douwe Dekker, in order the article to comply with the Wikipedia style. I have restructured it accordingly. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me you have made a big step forward here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete per notability and COI?

Merge the good material into articles on quality control and statistical process control.

Any claim to the notability of the intersection of these topics relies on COI-articles, which need not obviously meet the HQMR criteria. How is notability established through verifiable, most reliable, high quality sources?

(I edit often in statistics and optimization.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)