This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Surhone, L. M. (2010), The wisdom of crowds: James Surowiecki, anecdote, Francis Galton, crowd psychology, sampling (statistics), Charles Mackay
The word 'sample' has a specific meaning in statistics; the term is frequently misused by laypeople when discussing statistics and it had long been useful to be able to refer people to what the word is used to mean within the subject of statistics. The old article "Sample_(statistics)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sample_(statistics)&oldid=1060080564) which was merged into this article had a reasonable definition in its opening sentence, "In statistics and quantitative research methodology, a sample is a set of individuals or objects collected or selected from a statistical population by a defined procedure", which clearly distinguishes it from 'observation'.
The 'merged' article does not seem to contain such a definition of just the word 'sample' like that, when it should come before it starts using the term. There are one or two definitions of more specific terms, but before such "<something>-sample" terms are used, the word "sample" itself should be explained. The current structure of the article doesn't permit a new section to be placed before the word gets used as if its meaning was clear. I believe such a definition belongs in the opening paragraph. In particular, I'd suggest that the opening sentence needs to be recast into two sentences so the more basic term *sample* can be explained explicitly as it previously had been. I further think the use of the term "statistical sample" in the opening sentence is too technical for a lay audience; opening sentences should be *simple*. That modified term should have a specific definition further down. The opening is presently more technical than it should be and for someone looking to understand what a sample is, less useful than the previously available article that was merged into this.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
