Talk:Peter L. Hurd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in | Fix a red link | Add content | Weigh in
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low-importance within game theory.

This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep.

An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Peter L. Hurd, has edited Wikipedia as Pete.Hurd (talk · contribs)

[edit] Archive

/Archive

[edit] Some suggestions

The citation counts in the "Most cited publications" are far higher than I get when checking that source, perhaps that section (and the "Recent Publications") sections could be deleted since the list of pubs (especially ones "in prep") isn't really helpful to readers without some text explaining just what they are about any way. Pete.Hurd 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. While I see the value in the "most cited publication" section, I don't see the use of "recent publications". I will remove that section and check the citation counts. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed both sections, the citation counts were way off, and given that there aren't a set of publications that are cited way more than others, I'm not sure there is a benefit to listing some of them. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I miss both of the sections you just removed. It is not so important that the citation counts be exactly right, but the article is more helpful to the reader if he can quickly learn what this man is writing about. Just from a scan of the titles I got an idea, and now the titles are gone. To me, this article did not look like an undigested resume; it was well organized. If you believe that too many papers were listed, maybe they could be cut down 30%. Eliminate the citation counts if you don't like them. EdJohnston 05:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the goal of explaining what I'm writing about is better served by some short paragraphs of text explaining the research plus references, than by a list of publications. (see commented out text below for some idea of what I think might be a better way to explain this work). Pete.Hurd 05:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)