Comment: All of the material needs to be sourced with in-line references, meaning that each discrete portion of the material most be specifically referenced to one or more of the sources, including the particular page numbers in the sources that serve to verify the material. See WP:REFB for an explanation of the techniques needed to do this. But even after all of that in-line referencing is added, I'll still have my doubts about the appropriateness of this topic for Wikipedia. Under WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to serve as textbooks in advanced subjects, nor should they read like articles in scientific journals. Instead, our articles should be written in such manner as to be understandable to a reasonably well-educated reader. And no general reader will ever be able to understand what is being said here. To pick just one example, does anyone really expect a general reader to know about stochastic differential equations? And yet, the draft not only assumes that the reader is already familiar with them, but then proceeds to present results for those equations with the reader being given nary a reason to care about those results. Other reviewers might disagree with my assessment, but I think this topic is far too advanced for inclusion on Wikipedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although the large amount of work that was put in this is appreciated, it still needs a couple tweaks. Can you please add a bit at the front that will explain this to the uninitiated reader? Also, can you please fix the formatting of your reference list? Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: The main objection seems to having an article on a topic in Wikipedia that requires some technical backgrounds. That's a very general objection; not specific to this article per se. My understanding of the consensus is that Wikipedia can and should include some articles that are not necessarily accessible to every well-educated person. Since the topic does seem legitimate and notable (not fringe theory or obscure method), the draft article can and should be put in mainspace; I have therefore moved the draft to mainspace. -- Taku (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the tone of the article is texbook-y and that's the problem that needs to be resolved (I have added the tone template for now). -- Taku (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of the material needs to be sourced with in-line references, meaning that each discrete portion of the material most be specifically referenced to one or more of the sources, including the particular page numbers in the sources that serve to verify the material. See WP:REFB for an explanation of the techniques needed to do this. But even after all of that in-line referencing is added, I'll still have my doubts about the appropriateness of this topic for Wikipedia. Under WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to serve as textbooks in advanced subjects, nor should they read like articles in scientific journals. Instead, our articles should be written in such manner as to be understandable to a reasonably well-educated reader. And no general reader will ever be able to understand what is being said here. To pick just one example, does anyone really expect a general reader to know about stochastic differential equations? And yet, the draft not only assumes that the reader is already familiar with them, but then proceeds to present results for those equations with the reader being given nary a reason to care about those results. Other reviewers might disagree with my assessment, but I think this topic is far too advanced for inclusion on Wikipedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)