User talk:KYsnowmaker/sandbox

Well written. Some clarifications would help
 * Increased hyperlinks to content throughout
 * Clarify the type of radar frequency that is commonly used
 * Perhaps clarify what type of maps is intended. An image might be a good idea.
 * I do not believe that radar can be used to detect the uniformity of the particle size distribution. Or is some other definition of size intended?
 * What is meant by feathery?
 * Clarify what is happening with the bright band. There might be a cross-reference possible but generally this is related to a change in the refractive index during melting. My recollection is that there is a +7 dB shift that results.Nephologue (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice job Dallas, the information is clear. Here is a bit of feedback: Great job! NHNoah.hirshorn (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Within the first sentence it may be useful to explicitly mention remote sensing or radar. I like that it starts as a broad view and narrows in throughout the draft.
 * I know that you mentioned that citing the Garret paper could be a conflict of interest. One idea is to cite the website description of his instrument, but that may also be a conflict of interest (https://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Snowflakes/MASC.html). If the citation is regarding using a camera to photograph snowflakes, two other ideas are to find a website on snowflake photography or cite the German paper we read.
 * Adding a sentence explaining what a bright band is at the end could be beneficial.

Nice write up; incorporating a Remote Sensing component to the article is a neat idea. In addition to Noah's feedback I have only a few items I noted: Great idea to include this component on the page! UMightyMet (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the first sentence, consider swapping "detect" with "identify" - since cameras are more so used to identify type, and both satellite and camera can identify snowflakes (in their respective scale way).
 * I had to reread the first sentence to grasp what scales were being implied when mentioning "at different scales", perhaps a way to clear that up would be to break the sentence in two, or flip it to read something like "From large-scale satellites imaging snowstorms... to small-scale cameras taking pictures..., meteorologists have various means to identify snowflakes. Most applicable to general forecasting however is use of radio...."
 * An addition you could make in your second to last sentence would be to perhaps incorporate how the fall shapes also differ between raindrops vs. snowflakes further aiding the radar in identifying what form of precip. it is.
 * Hyperlinking Wilson Bentley as a source for snowflake photography could be another way to source that topic.

Apart from the previous feedback, I would drop the sentence on explaining how radar works and link to the wikipedia page for that. This helps maintaining the focus of this paragraph to the snowflake. I would also not evaluate radar as being ‘Most applicable’ and try to use a neutral tone such as: General forecasting utilizes radio detection .... Joayer (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel like there is a lot you could add to this: Baudette (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What satellite imagery bands are best for identifying snowflakes
 * How the RADAR is polarized, which allows for the prediction of the shapes of snowflakes
 * How is snow differentiated in a RADAR
 * Can they estimate snowfall from RADAR? How accurate is it?
 * explain what bright banding is

Nice clear and concise writeup. I have a few suggestions: Mpletch1 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Though not explicitly a snowflake, I'm wondering if radar detection of graupel can be discussed in your writeup as a small subsection.
 * Consider adding a sentence before the last sentence for context on melting snowflakes.
 * The first few sentences could be abbreviated since there is a Wiki page on radar.
 * I know that getting authorized to use a picture in a Wiki article is difficult, but inserting a radar image of snow would be helpful if possible, especially to describe the "feathery" pattern you discuss.

Good work! I think your section be a good addition to the page! Here are a couple suggestions I have: Boomersooner16 (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful to explain how snowflakes can be differentiated from raindrops on a radar
 * You mention bright-banding so I think it would be good to explain what that is and how it can be recognized on a radar
 * If possible, getting a picture of snow on radar would be great!

Good, clear, and concise! Maybe mention how ice also interacts differently to the electromagnetic radiation of the radar beam than liquid. PaulMcGlynn (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I like it. IJThomas (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this for the snow or snowflake article? This could fit into the science section of the snow article. They have a section about satellite data that could use something similar to this.