Template:Did you know nominations/Group testing
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Group testing
[edit]- ... that Group testing can be used for DNA sequencing, cryptography, machine learning and data forensics? Source: based on the 'Example applications' section.
- ALT1:... that Group testing can be used to determine if data has been altered without storing any additional information? Source: this is the trust of the Data Forensics section, based on: Goodrich, Michael T.; Atallah, Mikhail J.; Tamassia, Roberto (7 June 2005). "Indexing information for data forensics". Applied Cryptography and Network Security. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 206–221.
Improved to Good Article status by CheChe (talk). Self-nominated at 18:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC).
Hi, I came to move this to queue, but I can't see which part of the article or the source confirms the hook? Please you can you clarify this? Thanks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333 No problem. The idea behind the hook is the subject of the data forensics section. Specifically, in the last paragraph we have: "In fact, the amount of hashes needed is so low that they, along with the testing matrix they refer to, can even be stored within the organisational structure of the data itself. This means that as far as memory is concerned we can perform the test 'for free'." The source is Goodrich et al. (2005) as cited in the article. –♫CheChe♫ talk 16:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- If this is not deemed satisfactory please use the first hook instead. –♫CheChe♫ talk 19:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to check on the sourcing and to make a decision about which of the hooks can be used; it's been over a month since the potential promoter posted here, and there's been no response to a talk-page ping made over a week ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
for original hook, not ALT1 (the application in the source is so specific, I would hesitate to generalize it in the way ALT1 does). BTW, the tone in the "Data forensics" section is not encyclopedic, several instances of first-person prose. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- @P199 Regarding the use of first-person: that is a standard/common use of 'we' in mathematical literature of all kinds. The 'we' doesn't refer 'us', or 'you-and-me', but in some sense to any entity capable of doing mathematics. Personally I would have take it up with the mathematics wikiprojct before I would feel comfortable changing it. – ♫CheChe♫ talk 15:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)