Talk:Self-organized criticality: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>David Martin
No edit summary
imported>Subpagination Bot
m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details))
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = Self-organized criticality
|                cat1 = Physics
|                cat2 =
|                cat3 =
|          cat_check = N
|              status = 2
|        underlinked = Y
|            cleanup = Y
|                  by = [[User:David Martin|David Martin]] 21:13, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
}}
 
 


I have begun the article by copying across the introduction from the Wikipedia article, which was largely written by me.  This will be followed by the "see also" section and references.
I have begun the article by copying across the introduction from the Wikipedia article, which was largely written by me.  This will be followed by the "see also" section and references.

Latest revision as of 14:19, 14 November 2007

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition One of a number of physical mechanisms believed to underlie the widespread observation in nature of certain complex structures and patterns, such as fractals, power laws and 1/f noise. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Physics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

I have begun the article by copying across the introduction from the Wikipedia article, which was largely written by me. This will be followed by the "see also" section and references.

So far I have not added the remaining material, for the following reasons:

  • I think the Wikipedia article could do with being restructured
  • The Wikipedia article suffered from minor edits with people adding their "pet topic" to example lists, distorting the structure of the writing. The new article should be designed to deal with this in a better way.
  • The article needs to be friendlier to non-scientific readers

With this in mind, I'm inclined to start with a largely blank canvas, although including of course useful and relevant material from the Wikipedia article. —Joseph Rushton Wakeling 06:55, 9 February 2007 (CST)