Talk:Entropy for Beginners

I don't like the justification of the Article. There are statements like:


 * "Historically, the introduction of entropy has been confusing."
 * "So stated, without any reference to basic principles within real physics, this definition is weak and open to interpretation,"
 * "the definition is critically limited in various ways. It cannot for instance, adequately explain the entropy of mixing, implying a fundamental defect. These and other limitations are sufficient cause to abandon the classic approach."
 * "... does not have any of the limitations of the classical definition."
 * "In our opinion this confuses students and does not contribute to clarity of scientific thought."

All these statements are unfair, incorrect, and give the impression that the writers of the Article have not well understood thermodynamics. What's more important: there is no need for such a justification. The approach in the Article is interesting in its own right and complementary to the "classical" approach.

Please respond. If my opinion is supported I will write a more positive (if you like: harmonic) justification.

(Adwaele (discuss • contribs) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Hello, as you have no doubt noticed by now this book is not being actively contributed to. If you have an interest in the subject matter do feel free to continue to contribute. Thanks. QU TalkQu 20:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Critique 2017
I don't like this article at all. Specifically:


 * The title is wrong - the content is anything but elementary.
 * The article fails to connect with intuitive ideas about entropy.
 * The presentation is confused and rambling.
 * Many sentences are broken English making it doubly hard to read.
 * Much of the prose, even when grammatically correct, is awkward English.

The article is, at this point, way too long to fix. I recommend you change the title to something like:

"Entropy from an advanced persective, written by non-native speakers of English"

Of course an elementary introduction is useful and necessary, but this article can not possibly serve as the basis for such an introduction. Edit posted 2017 August 21 21:55 by 70.68.24.153