90:
80:
53:
318:
papers to put there instead. I think our goal should be to improve this
Knowledge article so that it in itself is a sufficiently good introduction to the subject, and then remove that section. Instead, we could have a single (hidden) "Further reading" section, with rather detailed subcategories so that people wanting to read more about some specific thing could easily find papers about that.
22:
182:
in my opinion. I think we should try to provide some other references too. (When adding a reference, please include a DOI link if possible! And use "en dashes" for page ranges, not hyphens.) Another thing: instead of trying to explain here what integrability or solitary waves or solitons are, we should just link to the corresponding
Knowledge articles instead.
397:
I'm not sure if these particular animations really improve this article. The have several issues. 1) Why are they 2D? This is a 1D equation, and an animation of the solutions should be a 1D curve. 2) the second axis is not labeled 3) how were they created? What numerical methods were used? 4) Some of
181:
The reference list is expanding, which is great! However, almost all of the cited articles are by
Constantin and coauthors. There's nothing wrong with those papers (on the contrary!), but there are also hundreds of other papers on the CH eqn, so the reference list is currently looking a little biased
268:
Very good suggestions. I agree completely, except that I think it might be even more useful if "Further reading" is divided into more specific subcategories (for example, "Numerical methods", "The CH eqn as a water wave model", etc.). But that can be dealt with later. To begin with, "Others" will be
317:
That's much better already. Some of the papers in the "Introductions to the subject" section are perhaps too specialized and technical to be there, since they are all really research papers with the focus on proving some specific results, but unfortunately I don't know of any good books or review
200:
list of references, which better reflects the breadth and variety of the enormous amount of research done on this equation during the last 15 years. There's still plenty of room for improvement in the main text of the article, but now at least anyone willing to take on this task should be able to
370:
Fixed. The year for Boldea was just wrong as far as I can tell, but in the other case I think the footnote actually was meant to refer to a different paper from 2006 (that I've now added; I moved the 2007 paper to "Further reading/Others").
234:"Further reading": my suggestion is to create two sub-sections in this. The first, named e.g. "Introductions to the subject" contain the introductory papers recommended by you; the second (e.g. "General" or "Others") contain the rest.
225:
A section "Works" seems more at its place for an biographic article on a writer. It could be the original
Camassa & Holm paper in this case, but my preference would be not to use this standard section.
344:
In two footnotes, there is a discrepancy between the year in the "notes" and in the actual "references": Boldea 1997; Constantin, Gerdjikov & Ivanov 2006 (using the "notes" years). --
158:
63:
452:
146:
457:
447:
136:
89:
112:
442:
462:
103:
58:
33:
376:
323:
274:
206:
187:
222:
distinguishes the following sections w.r.t. references: "Works", "Notes", "References", "Further reading".
240:
291:
I made a start with this. Do you have suggestions for improvement and further subcategory divisions? --
39:
21:
423:
349:
296:
255:
111:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
408:
372:
319:
270:
202:
183:
418:
The animations were removed by me, since the above points were not answered or improved. --
219:
427:
412:
380:
353:
327:
300:
278:
259:
210:
191:
243:) I suggest to put the "Others" in a collapsed table. See for an example of such a table:
398:
the animations don't seem to show anything useful, and just have rapidly varying colors.
216:
Hello Hans, the long list is indeed long. Here are some ideas on how to organize things:
419:
345:
292:
251:
244:
95:
436:
404:
401:
I think they should be removed, and if possible, replaced by better (1D) animations.
231:"References": my suggestion is to put the references mentioned in the notes here.
79:
52:
269:
just fine. And maybe the whole "Further reading" section should be collapsed?
239:
To avoid the risk that people object against the long list (referring to e.g.
85:
108:
15:
220:
Knowledge:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions
250:
What are your ideas on this ordering? Best regards,
107:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
8:
453:C-Class physics articles of Low-importance
201:find all the information they might need.
47:
49:
19:
7:
101:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
88:
78:
51:
20:
458:C-Class fluid dynamics articles
448:Low-importance physics articles
141:This article has been rated as
1:
381:09:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
354:17:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
328:09:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
301:17:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
279:16:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
260:23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
211:11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
156:This article is supported by
121:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
115:and see a list of open tasks.
124:Template:WikiProject Physics
196:I've now (finally) added a
479:
413:18:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
192:17:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
147:project's importance scale
428:20:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
245:Capillary wave#Derivation
155:
140:
73:
46:
443:C-Class physics articles
159:Fluid Dynamics Taskforce
463:Fluid dynamics articles
28:This article is rated
104:WikiProject Physics
34:content assessment
174:
173:
170:
169:
166:
165:
470:
129:
128:
127:physics articles
125:
122:
119:
98:
93:
92:
82:
75:
74:
69:
66:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
478:
477:
473:
472:
471:
469:
468:
467:
433:
432:
395:
241:WP:NOTDIRECTORY
228:"Notes" exists.
179:
126:
123:
120:
117:
116:
94:
87:
67:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
476:
474:
466:
465:
460:
455:
450:
445:
435:
434:
431:
430:
394:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
284:
283:
282:
281:
263:
262:
248:
237:
236:
235:
232:
229:
226:
217:
178:
177:Reference list
175:
172:
171:
168:
167:
164:
163:
154:
151:
150:
143:Low-importance
139:
133:
132:
130:
113:the discussion
100:
99:
96:Physics portal
83:
71:
70:
68:Low‑importance
64:Fluid Dynamics
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
475:
464:
461:
459:
456:
454:
451:
449:
446:
444:
441:
440:
438:
429:
425:
421:
417:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
402:
399:
392:
382:
378:
374:
373:Hans Lundmark
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
329:
325:
321:
320:Hans Lundmark
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
280:
276:
272:
271:Hans Lundmark
267:
266:
265:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
242:
238:
233:
230:
227:
224:
223:
221:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
203:Hans Lundmark
199:
194:
193:
189:
185:
184:Hans Lundmark
176:
161:
160:
153:
152:
148:
144:
138:
135:
134:
131:
114:
110:
106:
105:
97:
91:
86:
84:
81:
77:
76:
72:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
403:
400:
396:
197:
195:
180:
157:
142:
102:
40:WikiProjects
437:Categories
393:Animations
420:Crowsnest
346:Crowsnest
293:Crowsnest
252:Crowsnest
405:Arichar6
145:on the
118:Physics
109:Physics
59:Physics
30:C-class
36:scale.
424:talk
409:talk
377:talk
350:talk
324:talk
297:talk
275:talk
256:talk
207:talk
198:long
188:talk
137:Low
439::
426:)
411:)
379:)
352:)
326:)
299:)
277:)
258:)
209:)
190:)
62::
422:(
407:(
375:(
348:(
322:(
295:(
273:(
254:(
247:.
205:(
186:(
162:.
149:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
