 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
As these require paid subscription, they are not suitable for external links, but may be useful to future editors who have a subscription:
Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentencesorphrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators willbeblocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed parts of this article (some of them long-standing) which were either verbatim copy pastes or very closely paraphrased from the following sources:
I have also tagged two sections as confusing and needing a re-write. My impression is that this has resulted from pasting in text from somewhere and then attempting to change a word or two, remove one, etc. The result is very garbled. Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the thinly sourced advocacy rhetoric about the supposed benefits of orthogonal arrays vs. pairwise testing. Anyone who actually does combinatorial testing knows that you almost always re-run tests and run special variations of tests as part of investigating ANY anomaly. Orthogonal arrays don't save you from having to do such an investigation. In any case, it is out of place in Wikipedia to write opinion pieces. If there is substantial, unambiguous empirical evidence of the benefits of orthogonal arrays vs. pairwise, one link to one paper does not constitute such! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.32.86 (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at College of Engineering, Pune supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}byPrimeBOT (talk) on 20:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
