Contents

Talk:Liouville field theory

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Make technical articles understandable.[edit]

This article is crap. Rewrite as a teaching tool, not a collector's gallery of concepts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C2:8280:164C:88D9:18C:7F86:79AC (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that a WP article should be a teaching tool. And not sure whether it is feasible or even desirable to write on Liouville theory for the masses. But yes this article is probably too technical. Suggestions would be appreciated. Is there another article on a comparable topic that could serve as a model? Sylvain Ribault (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try putting the Lagrangian first, so that we know what we're talking about. The parameters after that, because currently, with the parameters coming first, out of thin air, its like WTF is this? And before the Lagrangian, maybe a one-paragraph review of the classical Liouville eqn to set the tone. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. I rewrote the first section, I hope this helps. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]