Talk:Rank One Chaos
The first part of the article, before the contents, is written in an informal way: 'we felt', 'we thought', 'our motivation', etc. Actually I like it, but I'm not sure that such a style is appropriated for an encyclopedia article. Definitely, for a standard encyclopedia it is not possible, but Scholarpedia is not so rigid. So, it is up to the editor to decide if the author should rewrite this part or not.
- On the line 2, 'development', on the line 3 'developed'. It is not good.
- Line 10 from above, it is better to replace 'concrete' by 'specific'.
- Line 14 from above, it is better to replace 'character' by 'type' since character is a mathematical notion that has nothing to do with the article.
- Line 19 from above, Diaz 1945?
- In the equation (2), one has to mention that Phy is periodic.
- In the equation (3) there is no Lambda 0, so in the line after this equation is better to write Lambda = Lambda 0, Gamma = Gamma 0.
- The subsection Supercritical Hopf Bifurcation. Many people think that it's more historically right to call it Andronov-Hopf Bifurcation. Of course, it's up to the author.
- In the title he called it supercritical, but inside the subsection he called it supcritical without explanation. It is not good.
- Replace everywhere 'Dirichelet' by 'Dirichlet'.
Summarizing: I have to say that the author did successfully a very difficult job and the article is definitively worth to be published in Scholarpedia.