User talk:Baudette/sandbox

Excellent discussion Nephologue (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Very impressed so far! The descriptions of individual optical phenomena are well-done, educational, and can be easily understood by a wide audience. Here are a few small edits to consider. First two introduction sentences may be able to be combined into a sentence detailing high altitude clouds and optical phenomenon. First sentence in the second paragraph could be potentially reworded to list the reasons for orientation first. One larger consideration is that the optical phenomena you discuss could be separated into sub sections with their own headers. Overall, awesome job! Please let me know if you have any questions. NH Noah.hirshorn (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Nicely written draft 'Baudette'. Nice shout out to the research done by both Pennsylvania State College and UofU. Just a few thoughts on my end, mostly minor: Otherwise very well organized. Keep up the great work. UMightyMet (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In your first paragraph, you mention "fall of 1934" and "fall of 1940", any more specific information (i.e. particular months)? I assume you would've included if known... but, if left as fall, I believe it should be capitalized "Fall of 1934" etc.
 * In your second paragraph, there are some great opportunities to incorporate some hyperlinks: 4th sentence "aggregation", "riming" (rime ice), and 2nd to last sentence "refraction".
 * Perhaps worthwhile to briefly elaborate on what "unblemished" means...

Very interesting write up. I am a little worried that there is too much detail for the two specific studies done by Penn State and the UofU. Maybe those could be a little shortened and mostly referenced. Maybe also drop the sentence for nucleation requiring -38C since you already linked to the other section. Great addition! Joayer (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting stuff! I like the historical anecdote that you lead off with. You mention the percentage chance of precipitation after a halo siting but I think it may be useful to compare this to the average percentage chance of rain in order to emphasize its statistical significance. Of course if that info isn't available in the study then it doesn't matter. Also, I think an introductory sentence at the beginning may be helpful because it may be a bit of a fast transition from the main part of the article. Something that introduces the statistics of halos would be useful. Other than that good job, I thought it was interesting. Boomersooner16 (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, KYsnowmaker (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "In the upper troposphere, particles for ice nucleation are sparse, therefore homogeneous nucleation is required." is a comma splice. I recommend replacing the second comma with a semicolon and adding another comma after "therefore."
 * Your sandbox article and your target article of Atmospheric optics were both written at a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 12.2, meaning they have compatible grammatical complexity and style.

I liked this a lot! Super small nit-picking change but its Penn State University not college. I think you did a great job describing the required crystal shape. PaulMcGlynn (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)