Add changelog

diff --git a/doc/news/changes/minor/20200320Grayver b/doc/news/changes/minor/20200320Grayver
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..c551586
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/news/changes/minor/20200320Grayver
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Added high-order mesh output to the step-11 tutorial. 
+<br>
+(Alexander Grayver, 2020/03/20)

diff --git a/examples/step-11/doc/results.dox b/examples/step-11/doc/results.dox
index ec32c393779c7e3228ef499b68fb70b7c4763500..d9bf0706fe7a4f767742d41e8eb6771952af5ad9 100644 (file)
--- a/examples/step-11/doc/results.dox
+++ b/examples/step-11/doc/results.dox
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ order. On the other hand, using a cubic mapping only improves the
 result further insignificantly, except for the case of very coarse
 grids.
 
-We can also visualize the underlying meshes by using, for instance
+We can also visualize the underlying meshes by using, for instance,
 ParaView. The image below shows initial meshes for different mapping
 degrees:
 
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ degrees:
 Clearly, the effect is most pronounced when we go from the linear to
 quadratic mapping. This is also reflected in the error values given
 in the table above. The effect of going from quadratic to cubic degree
-is less dramatic, but still tangible owning to a more accurace
+is less dramatic, but still tangible owing to a more accurate
 description of the circular boundary.
 
 Next, let's look at the meshes after three global refinements
@@ -61,5 +61,5 @@ Next, let's look at the meshes after three global refinements
 
 Here, the differences are much less visible, especially for higher order
 mappings. Indeed, at this refinement level the error values reported
-in the table are essentially identical between mappings of degree two
+in the table are essentially identical between mappings of degrees two
 and three.