User talk:J Yip/sandbox

Thorough article on an important topic. Nice work. Comments:
 * A bit more quantification and references throughout


 * "Clouds that are composed of ice have a higher albedo and optical depth than that of liquid clouds. For this reason, ice clouds and mixed phase clouds have a distinct cloud radiative effect compared to liquid clouds" Not sure why this would be the case, and should be stated whether this is for unit mass, unit optical depth, or whatever. Generally ice clouds are less opaque because they are colder (less condensate) and with larger particles (smaller optical depth per unit mass).


 * "the orientation of the mixing of these clouds can be extremely variable " Not sure what is intended here Nephologue (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What is "retention"?


 * "Snow that is retained creates a layer at the surface of infinite optical depth and high albedo. " Nature abhors infinities. Just large.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephologue (talk • contribs) 02:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Good idea to include blowing snow Nephologue (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Excellent organization and structure JYip. The information provided seems concise and nicely worded. Great job and effort put in on the research for this topic! UMightyMet (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The most prominent thought I had while reading was to mention that as you firm this draft up, don't be shy in incorporating hyperlinks. You discuss a lot of technical terms that you could likely hyperlink along the way to help a general audience -- i.e. "Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen Process".

Quite a range of topics covered and nice work on getting all the sources together. I think you should try to focus on one aspect and not introduce many at once. For instance ‘Effects of air pollution on surface snow albedo’ I think does not fit into the category of ‘cloud radiative effects’ section. I would also remove sections that go into energy balance effects caused by snow on the ground. This deserves a different section and much more detail. Like I said, lots of groundwork for many new sections that are geared toward snow science. Joayer (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Great job so far, there is a ton of great information in the article. Here is some feedback on a few things to consider: Please let me know if you have any questions. Again, nice work! Noah.hirshorn (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Jo, adding hyperlinks to some of the more complex terms would be useful. SWE was one that I noticed could have a link.
 * In the first sentence, I believe snowfall should be one word.
 * In the globally section, I think a colon instead of a comma should be used after "three processes"
 * I love the section on oil fields and alpine glaciers. While not necessary, adding a sentence at the end of the alpine glacier section about the implications of cavity melt could be interesting.

There is a lot of good information in your write-up, here are my suggestions: Baudette (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Clouds that generate snow fall pose ", remove the space between snow and fall
 * "Global impacts of snow can be divided into those effects that are due by snow cover and that are due to clouds", this wording is kind of hard to follow
 * "clouds observed between -38° and 0°", I'm assuming you are talking about °C
 * "The impacts of snow on the radiative budget include three processes, precipitation, accumulation, and retention."
 * "These clouds then are dispersed as snow falls out of them, accumulating on the ground.", add the comma after them
 * "However, in high altitude and high latitude regions, ", do you need to say both high latitude and high latitude regions? Would just saying high latitude regions be sufficient?
 * does Alpine Glaciers and Prudhoe Bay Oil Fields need to be two different sections or could it just be 2 paragraphs under Effects of air pollution on surface snow albedo?
 * One thing I worry about is this being readable for a general audience since the average person wouldn't know what downwelling shortwave flux or Sensible and latent heat fluxes means. I would make sure to add a lot of links to other pages

Very detailed article Jackson, great job. Here's a few of my suggestions: Mpletch1 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Add a period to the end of the last sentence in the third paragraph of the 'Regionally' section.
 * By "wind loading" do you mean just blowing snow?
 * Is the Halley Research Station in Antarctica?
 * Is the 'Effects of air pollution on surface snow albedo' the section title for the 'Alpine Glaciers' and 'Prudhoe Bay Oil Fields' subsections?

Good stuff! Here are a couple suggestions I have: Boomersooner16 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The first part under "Cloud Radiative effects of snow" is a bit choppy with all of the parentheses. It might be useful to write it out in a few more sentences instead of trying to get it all into 2 sentences.
 * I also think an elaboration of what the "surface energy budget", "cloud radiative forcing", and "albedo" could be useful to readers as well. It may be enough to just link the pages for those things in, but personally I think it would be useful to talk about them a little bit since they are fundamental for understanding your whole thing
 * Under "Prudhoe Bay" I think it would be good to mention where it is geographically.
 * This may be too much to ask, but I think that since you are giving 2 examples of the effects of air pollution on surface snow albedo, it may be useful to have a couple sentences describing that topic generally and then having your 2 examples listed afterward.
 * I like all of the statistics you included, it really adds to the quality of the article.
 * Good organization of your sections

I found your article well organized and exhaustive. I think the lack of fresh powder in the coming days may inspire you to improve the organization of your citations: if you can't ski on snow, you can cite on snow. KYsnowmaker (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Try to have three sentences in each of your paragraphs. (I have always been advised in science writing that two sentences are not a paragraph.)
 * Your sandbox article was written at a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 13.1 which is the same as the "Snow" article you will be adding this material to, meaning you are writing at the same complexity and similar structure to your target article.