This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Entropy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Entropy was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
/Available Energy '03-(Nov)'05 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
There was an instance of Template:POV dated November 2022 buried in the middle of the Carnot cycle section. Baffled, I tried to find any relevant discussion, and could not. If there had been discussion, I would've changed the tag to {{ POV statement}} (or moved the existing tag to the top of the article if it was genuinely meant to apply to the entire thing), but without any indication of why neutrality might be disputed it appears to be a case of WP:DRIVEBY. As such, I simply removed it. -- Proginoskes ( talk) 06:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The section on Entropy#Economics (near the bottom, under Interdisciplinary Applications) strikes me as very oddly written, and focusing a ton of effusive praise solely on the works of one Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. I think it'd be better if this could be toned down and made into a more generalized overview, instead of a section just crediting this one guy with being the brightest mind since sliced bread. Hornpipe2 ( talk) 05:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Max Planck derived the equation, not Boltzmann, and Max Planck introduced the Boltzmann constant, not Boltzmann. 90.154.71.24 ( talk) 18:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Entropy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Entropy was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
/Available Energy '03-(Nov)'05 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
There was an instance of Template:POV dated November 2022 buried in the middle of the Carnot cycle section. Baffled, I tried to find any relevant discussion, and could not. If there had been discussion, I would've changed the tag to {{ POV statement}} (or moved the existing tag to the top of the article if it was genuinely meant to apply to the entire thing), but without any indication of why neutrality might be disputed it appears to be a case of WP:DRIVEBY. As such, I simply removed it. -- Proginoskes ( talk) 06:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The section on Entropy#Economics (near the bottom, under Interdisciplinary Applications) strikes me as very oddly written, and focusing a ton of effusive praise solely on the works of one Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. I think it'd be better if this could be toned down and made into a more generalized overview, instead of a section just crediting this one guy with being the brightest mind since sliced bread. Hornpipe2 ( talk) 05:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Max Planck derived the equation, not Boltzmann, and Max Planck introduced the Boltzmann constant, not Boltzmann. 90.154.71.24 ( talk) 18:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)