Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monty Hall problem

Monty Hall problem

Ran across this a while ago, and it looks like a featured-class article to me. I have made only incidental edits, but understand by nominating I am volunteering to try to address any concerns that are raised. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Update as of July 7, 2005 01:44 (UTC): I believe I've addressed the majority of the feedback. I've solicited further comments from Wile E. Heresiarch and Arbor. There's a suggestion on the talk page to include a new "aid to understanding" section for which I'm not sure there's consensus. Bottom line is although the article has been here for a while, I believe there is still progress being made. By my count, current vote tally is 6 (7 counting my vote) support, 1 conditional support, 1 oppose. -- Rick Block (talk) July 7, 2005 01:44 (UTC)

• Support. It seems comprehensive, although you may want to rewrite the lead to state clearly what is the right solution - I had to read the rest of the article to make sure I understood it. 'The problem' and and 'Problem summary' sections look like they could be merged. A screenshot from the orginal show would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified the solution in the lead and combined the 'problem' and 'problem summary' sections. I'll try to find a screenshot from the show. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• SupportComment Since the average reader will have no use for the Java code, I recommend moving it out of the article in the same way that the simulation written in Perl was moved out (either to WikiSource or to a Wikipedia article on the subject). Also, the formatting with gray boxes is kind of ugly and can be improved. If these issues are addressed, I'll Support. Dave (talk)

I've moved the Java code and eliminated the gray boxes. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Monty Hall problem is quite a cruft magnet; everybody and his dog has their own idea about the clearest explanation, and as a result the article is needlessly cluttered. There is a lot of useful material, but someone needs to do a very heavy-handed editing job. I'm willing to reconsider if that happens. Hmm, maybe I should do it myself. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute the article seems cluttered, however different people seem to grok the solution differently which is the point to the various aids to understanding sections. Can you please propose which of these sections you'd eliminate, perhaps on the talk page? The article has been quite stable in its current form for several months. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Quite stable" only in outline; various blocks of stuff have come and gone. I've cut a couple of explanatory paragraphs out of the introduction, as they were redundant with explanations later in the article. Some of the "Aids to understanding" can also be cut -- I don't see any point to trying to state lots of explanations here, any more than, say, quantum physics should try to supply a separate explanation for every man, woman, and child on the planet. Two, or maybe three, is plenty. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A couple of the "aids to undestanding" sections have been cut. Have you looked at it lately? I'm curious if you think it's closer yet. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's looking better, although more can be done. In general the problem I see is that the Monty Hall problem is subtle, but simple; explanations are not improved by making them longer, but more precise. -- Here are some specific comments. The "Problem" and "Solution" sections can be strengthened: the origin of the assumptions listed in "Problem" needs to be identified -- are these the assumptions commonly made in discussions of the problem, assumptions stated by vos Savant, or is this a Wikipedian's take on the problem? Under "Solution", the explanatory text isn't very helpful; putting emphasis on certain words doesn't make it any clearer. Maybe we can cut the explanatory text under "Solution" since "Aids to understanding" is all explanations. Speaking of "Aids to Understanding", I'm in favor of cutting "Combining doors" (Clearly, the chance of the prize being in the other two doors is twice as high -- um, this really isn't the place for an evidence-free assertion), "Bayes' theorem" (if there can be any doubt, enumeration of cases will confirm this -- well, this is supposed to be an explanation, how come we're making this a homework problem?), and "Effect of opening a door" (this is just incomprehensible to me, sorry). Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific comments. I'll make a stab at addressing all of them (here, as well as in the article):

• origin of assumptions - I believe these were assumed as "common knowledge" (hence, unstated by vos Savant) but have actually led to considerable controversy. They're necessary to arrive at the commonly understood solution.
• Moving the explanation currently in "solution" to one of the aids to understanding seems like a reasonable idea (these words effectively repeat the diagram, which I'm reworking anyway).
• I believe the "combining doors" analysis is one of the key mechanisms by which some folks understand the problem. Rather than pitch it, I'd like to reword it as necessary (it also repeats the diagram view, perhaps what is currently the explanation in the solution section and the diagram and the "combining doors" section can all be combined into one section).
• The "Bayes' theorem" section looks like it can be improved.
• I don't grok the "effect of opening a door" section either, but I assume someone does. I'm a little reluctant to simply delete it. I'll chase down the original author and try to find out what s/he thought s/he was getting at.

-- Rick Block (talk) 03:41, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still hesitant about the assumptions part. Yes, I understand that explicit assumptions are needed. However, because the solution hinges on the assumptions, at present what we have is original research on the topic (we made the assumptions and we show what follows). We need to document the assumptions that other people have made. It seems likely that some of the academic papers cited in the references have explicit assumptions we can borrow. Wile E. Heresiarch 5 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)

I'll try to chase down a reference with the assumptions. I'm confident these are the same assumptions generally used, so it shouldn't be hard to find them (I'd actually be surprised if they aren't in vos Savant's book, The Power of Logical Thinking, which perhaps should be a reference here anyway). -- Rick Block (talk) July 5, 2005 06:01 (UTC)

• Conditional support. This is a good topic, and potentially a good article. But it does indeed need a heavy-handed editing job. It also needs an expanded history section, because the Savant "anecdote" is interesting enough in its own right. Is Curious incident the only appearance other appearance of this question in popular culture? (It does appear in many introductory maths textbooks, of course.) Arbor 12:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I disagree that it needs a major rewrite. Presenting the problem, the correct answer, and a collection of alternative explanations seems like a fine way to cover this topic. I also see no need to limit the number of alternatives. --Doradus 05:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It'd be best if you could settle the copyright status of Image:Monty2.gif. This link is Broken 23:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Per our talk, we're going with {{GFDL-presumed}}, although the following comment suggests new images are needed. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've created new images, primarily to resolve the "fuzziness" issue raised below, but since I created the new images I know their copyright status (GFDL). -- Rick Block (talk) July 1, 2005 15:41 (UTC)

• Mild Oppose The visuals look very poorly done. If somebody could make them look alot more proffesional I could consider it FA Material. Support The image issue is being taken care of. --EatAlbertaBeef 03:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, yes, this is not an easy-to-explain subject, but this is a difficult to understand, somewhat bloated, yet incomplete article. Interestingly, the Curious Incident book (the article on which links to this page) does a markedly better job of summarizing the problem, the solution, and the controversy (and in the context of a fictional story narrated by a 10-year old child). In addition to cleaning up the technical content, there needs to be more focus on the social impact of the problem, particularly in the Vos Savant case (that is, how the counter-intuitive nature of the solution has lured many academics into making fools of themselves). Jgm 04:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm withdrawing my comments; Rick has made a reasonable request for more specifics, however I will not have an opportunity to take a close look at the current version and update or expand my concerns for several days. In fairness, I'll leave it to others to work this out. Jgm 4 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)

Can you make these objections more specific? difficult to understand, somewhat bloated, yet incomplete and clean up the technical content are too vague to address. Whether a better description exists elsewhere is not especially relevant without specifically saying why you think it's better (I can't copy this description since it is in a copyrighted book). I've expanded the Anecdotes section, but I suspect you're looking for more. Please restate your objections in a form that will allow me to address them. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Support.The article is complete, easy to understand and it attracts and holds the readers attention. Optional suggestions for improvements that do not interfere with featured standards are an additional image, to illustrate the 'find the lady' game (three playing cards with a lady - if the image is already on Wikipedia it is not easy to find, I just looked for it.)--Fenice 1 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)
• Support. JYolkowski // talk 3 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)