Talk:Quasi-geostrophic equations

To the point that this article may be too technical for some readers: Yes, it is quite technical, however anyone who knows the term quasi-geostrophic (how else did they find this page) is very likely to have the requisite knowledge to follow the derivation on this page and understand its implications. For example, the QG equations in the Meteorology program at Penn State are first derived by undergrads in a 400 level class during their junior year, and a more in-depth derivation and analysis is given in a graduate level class. Given that background, I think that while the article is technical, it is certainly not too technical for its audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.4.30 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that just because the article is probably decipherable to those who are most likely to find it means that it isn't too technical. Although this is a common upper-level meteorology topic, it could still be explained in plain language much more effectively in the introduction. I don't know if there's a Wikipedia standard about having long derivations on pages like this, but it seems like something that would be better put briefly with links to other online sources. Marcushan (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to provide a more accessible lead for readers without an academic, meteorology background. I strongly oppose the removal of the derivations. WP:TECHNICAL does not support the removal of derivations; it does support an explanation of the parts and the significance of the equations. The discussion, in the Implications section, about the conservation of the sum of vorticities should be added to the lead as part of the summation.
SBaker43 (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the best derivations of the QG-Equations I have read so far. I am a meteorology student myself and I had a hard time understanding this complex topic. The derivations the article proposes is basically that one from Holton's "An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology" but in a shorter way. So you do not have to scroll through various pages to find the referenced Equations (as it is the case for the Holton book). This is a really important thing at least for me to not lose track in this complex topic and keep concentrated on what the author is doing. I would add in equation (14) which terms are term A, B and C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.203.112.169 (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]