![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Top Priorities
Last to-do list update: (replace with your signature when updating the to-do list) Charlesreid1 ( talk) 10:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Does Suhas Patankar warrant a mention in this article? If so, could someone more knowledgable than I whip up a sentence to do so. Thanks. -- John Fader 21:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We need, I think, a paragraph or two at the beginning that explains CFD for the layman. Someone with no mathematical background coming to find out what CFD is all about needs some information before we start getting into discretization method. It should go first because if they don't get something they understand in the first paragraph they will stop reading. DJ Clayworth 11:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the sections about turbulence models ( DNS, RANS, LES) should be integrated more with their respective separate articles, to avoid having the same information in more than one place? -- Ehdr 15:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through and added multiple cleanup templates, particularly {{
Refimprove}}, {{
Unreferenced section}}, {{
Weasel}}, {{
Who}}/{{
Whom?}}, {{
Citation needed}}. The style of writing in the article is terrible, it sounds more like an editorial than an encyclopedic treatment of CFD. The sections could be greatly improved by simply adding some additional references and getting rid of weasel words and editorial phrases, but more work is sorely needed. It's frustrating to see such an important topic get such a poor treatment. --
Charlesreid1 (
talk)
18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I've lowered the article quality from C to Start due to the lack of citations and overall plethora of unverified claims. I'm also including the Wikipedia editorial team's assessment table/criteria below. I believe this article very clearly fits in the Start class, as it lacks citations, has had a {{ Refimprove}} template since 2008, and leaves a majority of readers looking for a different source of information about CFD.
Accordingly, the number one task for improving this article should be to include additional references for unverified claims.
{{Grading scheme}}
-- Charlesreid1 ( talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This article states: "With high-speed supercomputers, better solutions can be achieved." This would imply that merely switching to a faster computer is going to help, which is of course not true. Higher mesh resolution will generally help get a "better" solution as will improving physical models - both of these require more computational resources, so if you want to get your answer in the same time, you'll need a faster computer, but a faster computer will not in itself do much for you in terms of accuracy, assuming that's what "better" is supposed to mean here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 ( talk) 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone review this newly created article? Not sure if it should be a stand alone. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 13:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Does someone know if CFD is regulary used in Aerospace accident investigations. I read about CFD investigations related to space missions, but is it typically used for investigations within the aerspace domain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.124.114.42 ( talk) 15:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no clear distinction between this article and the article Fluid simulation, so I propose that we merge them together. What do you say? — Kri ( talk) 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This is missing from the solution methodology. I think it is an important and interesting item and is also one in the to-do list topics to include of this article. I propose a section with a few bullet points regarding
I will soon drop a draft. Sankgeo 10:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankgeo ( talk • contribs)
Article fails the B-class criteria with several November 2010 "citation needed" tags and several unsourced (as yet untagged) paragraphs and subsections. Reassess article to C-class. -- Otr500 ( talk) 17:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Top Priorities
Last to-do list update: (replace with your signature when updating the to-do list) Charlesreid1 ( talk) 10:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Does Suhas Patankar warrant a mention in this article? If so, could someone more knowledgable than I whip up a sentence to do so. Thanks. -- John Fader 21:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We need, I think, a paragraph or two at the beginning that explains CFD for the layman. Someone with no mathematical background coming to find out what CFD is all about needs some information before we start getting into discretization method. It should go first because if they don't get something they understand in the first paragraph they will stop reading. DJ Clayworth 11:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the sections about turbulence models ( DNS, RANS, LES) should be integrated more with their respective separate articles, to avoid having the same information in more than one place? -- Ehdr 15:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through and added multiple cleanup templates, particularly {{
Refimprove}}, {{
Unreferenced section}}, {{
Weasel}}, {{
Who}}/{{
Whom?}}, {{
Citation needed}}. The style of writing in the article is terrible, it sounds more like an editorial than an encyclopedic treatment of CFD. The sections could be greatly improved by simply adding some additional references and getting rid of weasel words and editorial phrases, but more work is sorely needed. It's frustrating to see such an important topic get such a poor treatment. --
Charlesreid1 (
talk)
18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I've lowered the article quality from C to Start due to the lack of citations and overall plethora of unverified claims. I'm also including the Wikipedia editorial team's assessment table/criteria below. I believe this article very clearly fits in the Start class, as it lacks citations, has had a {{ Refimprove}} template since 2008, and leaves a majority of readers looking for a different source of information about CFD.
Accordingly, the number one task for improving this article should be to include additional references for unverified claims.
{{Grading scheme}}
-- Charlesreid1 ( talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This article states: "With high-speed supercomputers, better solutions can be achieved." This would imply that merely switching to a faster computer is going to help, which is of course not true. Higher mesh resolution will generally help get a "better" solution as will improving physical models - both of these require more computational resources, so if you want to get your answer in the same time, you'll need a faster computer, but a faster computer will not in itself do much for you in terms of accuracy, assuming that's what "better" is supposed to mean here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 ( talk) 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone review this newly created article? Not sure if it should be a stand alone. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 13:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Does someone know if CFD is regulary used in Aerospace accident investigations. I read about CFD investigations related to space missions, but is it typically used for investigations within the aerspace domain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.124.114.42 ( talk) 15:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no clear distinction between this article and the article Fluid simulation, so I propose that we merge them together. What do you say? — Kri ( talk) 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This is missing from the solution methodology. I think it is an important and interesting item and is also one in the to-do list topics to include of this article. I propose a section with a few bullet points regarding
I will soon drop a draft. Sankgeo 10:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankgeo ( talk • contribs)
Article fails the B-class criteria with several November 2010 "citation needed" tags and several unsourced (as yet untagged) paragraphs and subsections. Reassess article to C-class. -- Otr500 ( talk) 17:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)