Talk:Lagrangian coherent structure

LCO

The article uses the abbreviation LCO several times. Define it first! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Now rewritten from scratch. -- The Anome (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Title of article

The title of this article is currently "Lagrangian coherent structure", in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which decrees that the titles of articles about things should use the singular form. For example: Bird, not Birds, Tensor, not Tensors. Putting abbreviations in parentheses at the end of the title is also a no-no: the correct way to do this is to put an entry in at the LCS disambiguation page. You can read more at Wikipedia:Article titles. -- The Anome (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

It appears to be quite clear that AHadjighasem and especially Georgehaller have a conflict of interest editing this article. Together they have added 68 (!) references pointing to papers authored or co-authored by George Haller. Even the illustrations in the article are mostly from Haller and his co-authors. I will ask these authors to stop contributing to this article now, until they have disclosed their potential conflicts of interest.

At the same time, at first glance it appears to me that the article is far too technical, diving into many academic considerations which are of little interest in an encyclopedia article, e.g.

“The "FTLE ridge=LCS" identification,[20][21] however, suffers form the following conceptual and mathematical problems: […] In particular, a broadly referenced material flux formula[20][21][22] for FTLE ridges is incorrect,[3][26] even for straight FTLE ridges; FTLE ridges mark hyperbolic LCS positions, but also highlight surfaces of high shear.[17] A convoluted mixture of both types of surfaces often arises in applications (see Fig. 6 for an example).”

Many of those statements, in my eyes, add little value to the reader and certainly do not need an avalanche of citations. I would appreciate comments and help editing this article so as to restore some balance — it must surely be possible to cover Lagrangian coherent structure without making it so that 90% of the references point to the same person. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Holy cow! This is a freakin awesome article! This is exactly the kind of math/physics article we *want* to have on wikipedia! There are almost 18K math articles and 22K physics articles, and 99.99% of them are in absolutely miserable, pathetic, embarrassingly bad condition. If you want to complain, the complaint should be that they failed to also create a beautiful article for center manifold and/or KAM torus or etc etc that are back-grounder material for this stuff. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I share concerns with Ariadacapo - specifically, this entire article is an ever-so-slightly paraphrased copy of Haller's 2015 review on the subject . Given how much Haller has published on the topic I don't necessarily think the number of self-citations is the problem here, but I agree with Ariadacapo that this article is far too technical for an encyclopaedia entry. His 2015 review already exists, there's no need to reproduce it on Wikipedia. In my view, this article should be rewritten from the ground up. Scleractinian (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The article as it stands is quite intimidating, nothing has happened to it for the last six years. I do not think that the problem is fixable. I have replaced the OR banner with a COI banner, but really, I would support a deletion request. — Ariadacapo (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree: if there is a perceived conflict of interest instead of deleting a valuable contribution, an effort should be made to add more information. It is only normal that a major contributor to a scientific topic would add the material he or she is most familiar with, this is a completely normal thing in science. In fact, it is very desirable to get a thorough explanation from the person that knows the topic best!!! This is what typically happens when an expert writes a book or a review. Again, it is entirely normal and it should be expected. If it is perceived that other points of view are needed, then other authors should be encouraged to contribute. Again we need to add not delete. If the material seems to be too technical then additional introductory material should be added. Again we need to add not delete. Deleting this entry would be a big mistake in my view, and a very sad loss of amazing material. The argument that the 2015 review paper already exists is not a good argument because 1) this Wikipedia entry adds more information and presents it in a way that is easier to understand for most scientists and 2) many students and scholars around the world do not have access to papers behind paywalls. p.s. I tried creating an account to add this comment but I kept getting "bad username" so I will just leave this here with my IP, for the record I am a physical oceanographer research scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.126.17 (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

(In fact, I came across this talk page because I am recommending this entry to a master's student in Latin America that is starting to work with LCS, I am recommending him this page because it is easier to understand than the 2015 review. I was similarly recommended this Wikipedia page in 2016 when I started working on LCS years ago and I have found it very helpful. These examples are real-life proof that deleting this article would be a very sad loss and that the notion of deleting this can only come from someone that does not have an interest in the topic and/or is unable to appreciate this entry. It is a fantastic resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.126.17 (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lagrangian coherent structure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141001004042/http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~lekien/mangen-1.4.4.zip to http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~lekien/mangen-1.4.4.zip

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lagrangian coherent structure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120723092825/http://mmae.iit.edu/shadden/LCS-tutorial/overview.html to http://mmae.iit.edu/shadden/LCS-tutorial/overview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)