Talk:Gravity current

	Physics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

It is requested that a physics diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Revert

Hi. Sorry to revert what appears to be a good-faith edit. But it's not clear to me how evaporation leads to turbulence. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plain-english explanations

The material in this page, in its current form, is highly technical and difficult to understand. It seems to me that someone familiar with the subject matter could explain it in a simpler, more tangible manner which most readers could understand. As it is now, it does not help me to understand how these currents really work, in the Chicago River, for example.

Any takers?

Matthiashess (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has improved quite a bit since 2009. There are also lots of quality references now, so I am going to take off the citations needed flag. Chogg (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions and reorganization

I've found this article to be in pretty bad shape after a few edits about a month ago. I'm reverting these, fixing up citations (the citation flag is still in place), and adding some material. Though, a subject matter expert's touch would still benefit this page. Tfocker4 (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done editing. I got rid of some bad edits, removed a bunch of redundant material, added some citations, and, most importantly, combined the two largest sections to supply a somewhat more coherent message. I moved the Refimprove to that one section, Structure and Propagation. I know fluid dynamics, but am not familiar with this problem. Tried digging through the literature a bunch, and came away with the sense that what's in that section is not nearly as ubiquitous as the article suggests. Here's a laundry list:

The 3 flow stages (of the head or of the whole thing?) aren't really addressed by the cited article (it mostly covers the first stage).
If the above is just about the head of the flow, then what about the rest?
There's almost no discussion of the continuous flow case, nor transition between these two.
I see some authors refer to a "head", "body", and "tail", but the current article just talks about "head" and "tail", so I left as-is.
The Research section feels a bit arbitrary, e.g. no mention of Huppert. I considered removing it, but opted not to since I'm already changing a lot.
The In Nature and... section is largely redundant of material in the opener. Once again, I considered removing it, but opted not to since I'm already changing a lot.
The modeling section needs a lot more
Should've added some pictures from the various linked articles that show the actual process, but I wasn't sure which might be most representative.

Tfocker4 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]