Talk:Kirkwood–Buff solution theory
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Michael Hardy in topic Much copy-editing
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Much copy-editing
editI did the following copy-editing:
- I corrected the inappropriate article title, chaning "Kirkwood-Buff" (with a hyphen) to "Kirkwood–Buff" (with an en-dash).
- Similarly I corrected every occurrence of the hyphenated version within the article.
- Ranges of pages, such as 679–735, also need an en-dash rather than I hyphen. I changed several of those.
- Displayed (as opposed to inline) mathematical notation should be indented by a colon; I did that.
- I changed this:
- to this:
- The word "bulk" needs to be in text mode.
- I made some changes for ease of editing that don't affect the appearance to the reader. Several things like \left(G_{11}+G_{22}-2G_{12}\right) I changed to (G_{11}+G_{22}-2G_{12}). It is necessary to have \left and \right in things like this:
- since otherwise it looks like this:
- However, for things like \left(r\right) the sizes of the parentheses are fine without \left( and \right), so I changed several instances of \left(r\right) to (r). Similarly, for G_{ij}, it is necessary to have the curly braces so that both characters get subscripted rather than only the first, but with G_i it is not. (This last is a quite minor point.)
- I changed some things like \boldsymbol{r_i} to \boldsymbol{r}_i. I don't think the subscript i should be included within the bolded part, since the subscript still refers to the same thing as in expressions like g_{ij}. Thus we see
- instead of this: