User talk:PaulMcGlynn/sandbox

I like the topic. Comments as follows


 * Add referencing
 * Check grammar and style, perhaps using a tool like Grammarly (I believe available for free at the U)
 * "Due to the rigid lattice structure of ice, particle growth by vapor deposition cannot be calculated the same way as liquid droplets." This isn't clear to me. Why? The electrostatic analogy could in fact be applied to droplets too.
 * Clarify with cross-referencing what the basal face and prism face are, and how they relate to the differing growth regimes, which is discussed elsewhere on wikipedia
 * But then it is not clear how the capacitance model relates to growth on the prism and basal faces. The existing models are most developed for oblate and prolate spheres as described in the notes. Please clarify Nephologue (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This write-up is very informational; nice work so far. As you roll into a final draft I'd recommend inserting a number of hyperlinks when using more technical terms. Also, don't forget to include/ cite your resources. Nice research! UMightyMet (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I second everything Kim said above. But this leaves me wondering how you plan to tack this onto the growth section. Are you going to add it as a subsection? Or insert it in the middle of the Growth section before it starts to talk about aggregation? Do you plan to edit what is already there? Baudette (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with the others that I think this should be somehow merged/updated with the current 'Growth' section. Think you also have lots of opportunity to link to existing Wikipedia articles, especially explaining ice crystal structure and the basal face vs. basal plane. Reading the last sentences also makes me want to revisit the terms I used for the type of crystal growing under certain temperature ranges. Currently I use 'prism', where you refer to 'columns'. For consistency with the literature I think I will change to the latter. Maybe you can also shorten that section in your write-up and link to the 'classification' one? Joayer (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Great job so far, it is a really clear article and easy to follow along. The only two things I can think of are: Other than that, nice work! If you end up adding it to the growth section, let me know if you would like to work briefly to edit the preface for the "formation" section. NHNoah.hirshorn (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by others, consider adding hyperlinks to some of the larger terms. Also get citations in the draft.
 * The third sentence is a bit wordy and I think it could be shortened.

Extremely detailed article, great job. Mpletch1 (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you planning to give this article a title or add it to another section?
 * Agree with others to add hyperlinks and citations. Other than that, not much else to add.

Great analogy! I think that it does a good job of illustrating your point. What section do you plan to put this under? I assume that under the Growth section of Formation would probably be best. That being said it does seem to overlap with the classification section as well. I would be careful not to repeat some of the things that the classification section already mentions about the shapes of snowflakes are dependent on the temperature that they're growing at. The 6th sentence needs a "the" before vapor field. Boomersooner16 (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)