Talk:Resonance

Horrible introduction. Needs to be changed. Still.
The introduction leaves a lot to be desired. It provides only a vague description of what resonance IS and absolutely no description of what causes it. It doesn't even mention the exchange of one type of energy into another, ie potential gravitation into kinetic in a pendulum. I noticed there was a talk page created 3 years ago about this exact same problem. The fact that it hasn't been remedied yet in the least bit is very dismaying. I would do it myself if I were more educated and in a better position to do so. But surely there is SOMEBODY who cares enough to change this. It's not like this is an article about some obscure phenomenon. It's a very basic and well documented phenomenon that anyone with an education in physics should be able to explain. Unfortunately I'm not educated in post-secondary school in physics so I'm not in a position to make the appropriate changes. But surely somebody is. Surely somebody HAS been since it's been brought up.

Thousands of people will be coming to this page looking for an explanation of resonance. And the fact that THIS is what they're going to get. A vague, confusing mess that explains nothing. Will only further damage Wikipedia's reputation as a credible source of information by perpetuating the rumours dating back to the site's inception that "anyone can change it so anything can be wrong." Not to mention it wouldn't teach them anything about the topic and just leave them confused and misinformed. Which I think is the opposite of what Wikipedia's goal is.

I know opinions should be left out of these pages, but I think it's very important that this issue be remedied. Again, I would love to do it. But I fear with my lack of expertise on the subject, and on editing wiki pages, I would be far out of my element. But I implore anyone in such a position to at least fix the intro. The whole page is a mess to be honest, but one step at a time. 2607:FEA8:99C0:61C0:F883:E9FA:5A34:FB67 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thermo-acoustic Resonance
It shall have at least few words about thermoacoustic resonance. 89.134.31.157 (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Linear systems section is too too long.
Per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, the section on linear systems should be cut down, I suggest to one example. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Original research tag for Example section
As of June 15, 2024, 'Example' section bears the 'original research' tag. However, I feel the content in this section is reasonable and widely known to most physical scientists and engineers. There is no original research, and it is questionable why citation is needed here (and not other places where very detailed and technical points are described under this general topic). If someone who has the privileges for or knowledge about the process of removing the tag, please initiate it. If someone agrees or disagrees with me, please comment. NorioTakemoto (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The policy on verifiability applies to any content that might be challenged by any editor, without regard for their level of expertise. To say it another way, without references any editor is free to delete content. I routinely edit articles and delete unsourced content I don't understand. I find that even editors with expertise include material that is based on "experience" or "hearsay" but which turns out to be incorrect or out of context when one looks into references.
 * Having said that, you can remove the tag at any time. Since it was tagged recently your approach of opening a Topic first is great however. I changed it to "more citations needed".  The swing set pendulum isn't really an issue but it does make very specific claims about mechanism. The other examples need citations.
 * @Volunteer Marek added the tag and may have addition input. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)