Talk:High pressure jet

Review

Good job on your article! I rephrased some short phrases, but I made some minor adjustements. I would just say that there may be some missing reference (at the end of the 2nd paragraph in the CFD chapter). Bye! Andrea Andre lleo (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are quite right! thank you very much! Fferrario98 (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Ciao! Very detailed and professional demonstration this article is. Just two things may be able to considered in the following.

The varibles in the paragraphs are all not italic, or maybe that's the default format of wikipedia.

The infobox in the bottom seems not include the topic of this article. Matching to a certain area may be better.

Good work! Arrivederci! Duomo Feng (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right about the infobox. I will try to find a more adept infobox. thank you! Fferrario98 (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in June 2022.

I suggest reviewing a few points: - Extending the introduction, I would provide a more concise description of what an endoscope is and the etymology of the name - I would provide more details on the structure and functioning of the endoscope - I would not use 'etc.' in the lists. For example, in the case of body districts and their diagnosable pathologies, I think it is more appropriate to use a well-described paragraph, not truncated by an "etc.", instead of a sub-bullet with a list of pathologies - I would review the 'English' form of the content

-- BarettoDiArchitettura (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]