Talk:Grashof number

message: It looks as though the "Single source" complaint has been answered by provision of several references.  Should not the box now be removed?  (I'm not a physicist, I'm an interested outsider, but even so I might eventually take this action myself if no-one else reacts at all.)
Ambrose H. Field (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough sources now?

message: Things that were done well:
1. The introduction is descriptive but concise: I get a quick look into the broad definition (the ratio of...), the kind of scenarios the Grashof number is applied to and where it came from (Franz Grashof)
2. The article is broken down into appropriate sections that I feel fully cover what one might seek to know about the number, and these sections are well-organized (e.g. makes sense to put the definition first, the derivation is probably less important than how it is used in conjunction with other dimensionless numbers)
3. There’s a notice at the top of the article that says “article may be too technical for most readers to understand”, but I think the language used throughout the article is clear and straight forward! The article is also unbiased (sounds very encyclopedic!)
4. Derivations can be difficult to explain, especially through written communication, but I thought it was easy to follow (I like the formatting with the variable definitions in a list, and the explanations before and after the equations).
Things to improve: (These are all minor, nitpicky changes!)
1. I’d put a “Momentum/Heat Transfer” heading under “Definition” because in the contents, it looks like you only talk about mass transfer, and as people start to read the first part of the section, they might be expecting that
2. “…and therefore the fluid rises” sounds a little funny to me. Maybe change to “due to an increase in temperature, causing the fluid to rise”?
3. When I read “The Grashof number is a way to quantify the opposing forces” I feel like I’ll get two values for each force from the number, so maybe make a comment revisiting the fact that it’s a ratio.
4. You give a range for vertical flat plates, do you have ranges for the pipes or bluff bodies? If so, maybe you could make a little table with the formula, ranges, and significance, for easy reference.
5. The History section is very short right now, making it seem unnecessary. I’d cut this out or add something about the work that led to its development.
6. Relationship to Other Dimensionless Numbers: Maybe add a formula in the text to show Gr*Pr and Gr/Re^2 for quick reference? It’s easy to understand as it’s written, but that could help for quick reference again.
7. Add citations to the derivation sections!
8. There are four references at the bottom that aren’t numbered; do these go to any specific statements/sections?
Takeaways for my article:
1. My variables for equations are stated in the text, but I think it’s easier to see as a list, like you have!
2. I also like how your equations break up the large chunks of text, so instead of adding a full description and then an equation, I’ll briefly introduce aspects of an equation, provide it, and then follow up with further explanation of how it’s used or manipulated.
Great job!
AmandaLevenson (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: The article seems to have a lot of the calculations and the math behind the number covered. However, the introduction does need more content, or maybe adding it to the definition section would be easier. Also, a graph that shows the relationship between the change in density and temperature could be helpful to add in the definition section. For the history section, it would be good to add when it started to be used and how it was discovered. The relationship with other numbers section seems very interesting and helpful for the article, however, it also needs more information. For example, you could show the calculation of one example for each number. You could also support them by adding tables that show different values for different examples. To add on that, the derivation part lacks some references for the material that you used. However, seems very complete.H walaa (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: * I added the heat transfer heading as suggested in #1 from Amanda's edit
* I will revisit the wording as suggested in #2 and #3
*For some of the derivations and equations that other people worked on, I need to review their sources so I can cite specific parts of the article that these were used for, or find additional sources.
* I do need to find some more information on the history section to expand on it as suggested in #5
*The suggestion to put equations in the relationship is great, I will do that for my final article. 
Clarefc (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to peer review