Talk:Hunting oscillation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TrainsWikiProject|class=B}} |
{{TrainsWikiProject|class=B}} |
||
A peer review with no feedback is of little help, if there |
A peer review with no feedback is of little help, if there is no indication of the short fall. In which respect is it deficient? |
||
I have read the 'good article' criteria. All I can think of is elementary calculus puts it beyond the 'average user'. It is difficult therefore to see how any engineering, scientific or mathematics article can be anything other than uselessly shallow. The general reader need look no further than the preview, the rest is obviously intended for the student. |
I have read the 'good article' criteria. |
||
All I can think of is elementary calculus puts it beyond the 'average user'. It is difficult therefore to see how any engineering, scientific or mathematics article can be anything other than uselessly shallow. The general reader need look no further than the preview, the rest is obviously intended for the student. |
|||
I wonder about a rail project which does not conern itself with the fundamental question of what keeps the train on the track, and what defines the upper limits of potential performance. Are the 'good' articles no more than lists of engine types, forming as compelling a read as the telephone directory? |
I wonder about a rail project which does not conern itself with the fundamental question of what keeps the train on the track, and what defines the upper limits of potential performance. Are the 'good' articles no more than lists of engine types, forming as compelling a read as the telephone directory? |
||
Revision as of 09:51, 8 July 2006
 | Trains B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
A peer review with no feedback is of little help, if there is no indication of the short fall. In which respect is it deficient?
I have read the 'good article' criteria.
All I can think of is elementary calculus puts it beyond the 'average user'. It is difficult therefore to see how any engineering, scientific or mathematics article can be anything other than uselessly shallow. The general reader need look no further than the preview, the rest is obviously intended for the student.
I wonder about a rail project which does not conern itself with the fundamental question of what keeps the train on the track, and what defines the upper limits of potential performance. Are the 'good' articles no more than lists of engine types, forming as compelling a read as the telephone directory?
In an engineering subject it is not good enough to describe things, it is necessary to explain why, they are as they are. Gordon Vigurs 09:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)