Talk:Computational physics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Serrion.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Style

The writing style in the "Challenges in computational physics" is overly verbose: "it may be somewhat of an understatement to say this is a bit of a problem" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.81.43 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 September 2005

• In agreement with Jorgecarleitao's judgment in March on this article needing work, I have decided to bring back this section, albeit in a rewritten form; it could provide a better context. Hope it works... Ema--or (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

BSc Computational Physics

the University of Adelaide has a degree specially designed to tackle this type of physics BSc. (High Performance Computational Phsycs) (Honours) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eevo (talk • contribs) 12:34, 6 March 2006

Thought I should let readers know that the University of York (UK) does a good degree in Computational Physics. I did my Bachelor's there some years ago. Even though I have worked in a variety of areas since then, I still use the ideas and methods that the Department taught me - in fact I use them in my doctoral work now. I understand that a lot of graduates don't really use their degree subject a lot after University (no offence anyone!). If you're unsure whether to go to York or another University, be aware that York has over 350 pubs. Just thought I'd mention it. Jas 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

A Croatian ip from the 193.198.(...) range replaces the article continuously with texts from [1]. As I can't find a GFDL compatible license there, I've reverted. Also and independent of this I think the copyvio revision is no improvement compared to the prior revisions. --Oxymoron⁸³ 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality of Source 4

As a relatively new editor, I'm not sure whether or not the fourth reference is sufficiently high quality for use in wikipedia. This source looks like a self-published one, which makes my dubious as to whether it can be considered stable enough.

Clarification would be appreciated. Serrion (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree a better citation would be better. But on the other hand, the author is a specialist in the field, the work is from 1997 which means that it is stable for at least 19 years, and the introduction makes a good case on where it is being cited. Jorgecarleitao (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I see your point on the quality of the source. That being said, I think the section it appears in could be worded better. In particular, the last sentence starts a clarification but goes about it in a relatively convoluted manner. Fair warning: I'm going to be moving some edits over in the next couple of days, but I'll try to keep them individually small so you can easily revert any you may disagree with. Thanks for the input! Serrion (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the section could be improved. Don't mind modifying what you believe should be modified here. If it makes you more comfortable, work the text in a scratch page and share it here before modifying in the main text, and someone (me?) will review it. In any case, go for it, and thanks for the effort! Jorgecarleitao (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)