Talk:Hysteretic model
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
'
 | The contents of the Hysteretic model page were merged into Hysteresis on 2024-01-17 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
What is this article about?[edit]
The article tells us something that these models may have, and lists four different categories of them, but doesn't say what they are. Largoplazo (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Very one-sided view.[edit]
This article, while giving off the air of being general, only cites work by the editor himself, and in the process ignoring almost a century of work on hysteresis modeling. This gives a very biased view of the field, to put it mildly, and rather feels like self-promotion by the editor. This is not how a scientist should conduct himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:D480:4C0:104C:0:0:0:100E (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Completely agreed. If one wants to write an article about hysteresis models, for sure some common techniques such as Preisach-Mayergoyz models should be included due to their ubiquity across numerous fields, along with I'm sure many others. CMMcCann (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I've removed the material that amounts to the author reporting his own research rather than providing a general overview of the topic. This leave us with my complaint, above, from three years ago, but so be it. And I've added a stub template. Largoplazo (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've added a list of such models that have Wikipedia articles of their own. So now there's balance. Largoplazo (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)