Talk:Computation of radiowave attenuation in the atmosphere

I'm not claiming that anything in the article is factually incorrect. The article reads like the author's personal observations and conclusions, although it does cite some apparently reliable sources as the basis for the analysis. Wikipedia is not the place for first publication of someone's new analysis of a complex subject, or for a very specialized application of some branch of math and physics to a particular problem, or for new pedagogy on the subject. Rewriting is needed to make it read like an encyclopedia article rather than personal reflections on the topic. The subject may be too specialized for a general encyclopedia: is there an existing article which covers the same topic at a higher level, into which this could be selectively merged? The style of referencing should be done better, by following the links provided in the boxes added. Edison (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've brought a number of aspects of the style into line with WP:MOS and WP:MOSMATH. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank everyone for the comments. All the flagged items were corrected. Reference sources are publicly accessible. Links were put in related articles (were put as absolute URL, possibly they should have been internal wiki pages. There is an unclear editing issue here). There are many general articles where this small article can be considered as an application section (e.g. Plane Geometry, Satellite Communication, Radio wave propagation, Optics, Eikonal equation, Numerical Analysis ...). What would be the best place?

The little bit of geometric derivation in the second section is no more than standard High School Geometry, although it was derived in a complicated way in the quoted reference. The second section uses an equation easily derived and is given in the References. The third section is just standard Numerical Analysis. None of this is research material, just plain standard material. --Thuytnguyen48 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I restored the templates. It still reads like your essay or original research. Wikipedia is not a place for initial publication of your research. Have you looked for other articles covering this general topic? If it is "just standard material," then demonstrate that it has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Edison (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

This very specific combination of topics is not available elsewhere in Wikipedia; however, each subject: Euclidean geometry, radio wave propagation, the eikonal equation and numerical analysis is.

I put links to this article from other articles both in the external link and in the body of the text. One contributor qualified my doing as "spamming". Where should I put the links?

For references, I use the tag ref. What else do I have to use?

I don't understand the question of notability of the subject: it is discussed at the international standardization organism ITU-R, the software for part of the recommentations of ITU-R mentioned in the article is available through the French Spatial Reasearches Institute CNES and it is also implemented for the NASA. I added also an external link to NASA's Study on Atmosphere Attenuation Some of the tax money goes there! It is also used by DISH TV and GPS too. The subject deserves a place in an encyclopedia. When I first looked at the subject, I was upset that the information is available in bits and pieces all over the Internet but there isn't a single place where it is treated with all the glore stripped out. It became clear to me that the subject can be explained to the general public in simple terms, using only common knowledge. People doing researches would be upset if what I did were hailed as "original research", it is just a patching job. I contacted the CNES and asked someone there to review the article.

The style? yes, I have never written anything of encyclopedic type. I read the wiki link but it is still unclear to me what that style should be.

--Thuytnguyen48 (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

When you create an original combination of math techniques applied to an engineering problem, that may constitute original research in Wikipedia terms, and WP:Synthesis. You created a nice text which might be presented at a conference or might be found in a textbook. That is not what encyclopedia articles generally are. Edison (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks to Michael Hardy for helping with the editing. I now have a couple of usable examples of referencing!--Thuytnguyen48 (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I removed your statement from the introduction of what you will be doing in the article, That sounds more like a lecture or journal article, and not like a typical encyclopedia article. I noted that the conclusions contain your evaluation of the difficulty of various methods you used in the article, making them original research. Edison (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Edison, I did not think of that point! After all, this is my first personal contact with Wikipedia. I modified also the conclusion to take away that impression of being a result of researches.--Thuytnguyen48 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply