Wikipedia:Peer review/Coriolis effect/archive1

Coriolis effect
Over the past months I have been researching the available knowledge about the Coriolis effect. I believe the subject of the Coriolis effect merits an article with the length it now has. I think it is an underestimated part of Newtonian dynamics. The Newtonian dynamics of the Coriolis effect is rather counterintuitive, and I felt there was a need for animations. The animations in the article are manufactured by me.

(There are in all 6 animated gif's. Thus the article will take a long time to download for people with a telephone connection to internet. Is there a recommended maximum Kilobytes for text plus images?)

I have tried to structure the article in such a way that the level of difficulty builds up gradually. The article is long because I take it slowly. My research of information available on the web has convinced me that a lot of people are quite baffled by the Coriolis effect.

In preparation for applying for Featured Article status I am requesting peer review now. I will have to convince other people that the Coriolis effect is really cool physics and worth such a long article. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 12:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The aritlce does a good job of describing the material. On your question about length, the wiki software will warm you when the page is over 32kb, it pops up when you edit the whole page, this article isn't over that size yet, and besides there is no size restriction applied to featured article candidates.


 * The lead section should summarise the content of the article, at the moment it doesn't do that. You should also list all the sources that you have consulted to write the text. The article doesn't actually discuss the Newtonian dynamics of the Corolis effect, not in those terms anyway, so you may want to make that aspect more clear, the work of Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis in this area could be expanded on too.--nixie 02:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * About summarizing the content: there is a bit of a dilemma there. The physics of the coriolis effect is counterintuitive, so I feel the article must proceed carefully. A more inclusive summery than the current would consist of sweeping statements, which might be confusing to some readers.
 * Previous versions mentioned relativity theory, which is unnecessary, for no relativistic effects and/or velocities are involved. Classical mechanics suffices. In discussing moment of inertia the article uses newtonian dynamics only, and that is all there is to it: the current discussion is an exhaustive discussion. By contrast: in an article about for example the Doppler effect, there are good reasons for discussing first the newtonian context and then the relativistic context.
 * The important sources, the ones that made the difference, are listed in the External links section: The fluid dynamics demonstrations of MIT, and the meteorologist Anders Persson. Other than that it is general knowledge.
 * I can add a section with some background about Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis. Currently the historical information is in the section about the formula--Cleon Teunissen | Talk 05:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)