User talk:Cmedvid/sandbox

Peer review: There's tons of good information on the history of laser cooling here, and it looks like you have plans to cite sources for each fact that is introduced. Make sure the published version has a citation for each fact!

Between my page, and the other page I reviewed, it seems like we're all writing with a style better suited to essays than encyclopedias. I think shorter sentences with more plain language would help. It would also be good to break up this big wall of text into a subsection or two, to really clarify which events or exchanges are most important to the reader.

The final thing that would really make this contribution great is the inclusion of links to other Wikipedia topics. I read a lot of physics wikipedia, and having links between articles really helps me understand the subtopics that contribute to an understanding of the article I'm reading. A few suggestions for links:

• electromagnetism
• radiation
• dipole
• spectroscopic (Spectroscopy)
• Doppler effect
• Kelvin
• Absolute Zero
• Magnesium
• ion
• Bose-Einstein Condensate
• any famous scientists mentioned

Actually, probably any physics or tech concept that is mentioned should be linked. This would ensure that if a reader doesn't know a term, they won't get lost, they'll just have to look at another page.

Conventions/typos in bold:

• "The introduction of lasers in atomic manipulation experiments acted as the advent of laser cooling proposals in the mid 1070s."

• "They both outlined a process of slowing heat based velocity in atoms by “radiative forces.”[1] <-- heat based velocity technically redundant, probably just 'decreasing velocity' or something

• "In the late 70s, Ashkin, in a letter, described how radiative forces can be used to both optically trap atoms and simultaneously cool them. He emphasized how this process could allow for long spectroscopic measurements without the atoms escaping the trap and proposed the overlapping of optical traps in order to study interactions between different atoms.[3]" <-- can probably get by without this in bold

Evanmayer1 (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer review: Overall, you've assembled a comprehensive look at the history of laser cooling. However, I think Evan has it right when he says your style is much more suited to essays than encyclopedia entries. In general, do your best to avoid fluff words such as "only," "just," or "had." These only slow down the reader's absorption of information and clog up the article.

Moreover, you've presented us with something like a block of text. You probably realize that this needs to be broken down, but try to think of ways that the information could be more easily presented. Perhaps bullet points or numbered lists?

1. Lists
2. look like
3. this,

but

• bullets
• look like
• this.

For instance, in the last paragraph you start talking about the applications of laser cooling. This needs to be its own section. In general, try to categorize whatever you're talking about locally. Don't just throw every piece of information you have at the reader; keep your flow of information steady, relevant, and related to what came before it.

Finally, I agree with Evan that you need more links. You tend to use a lot of appositives in your article. These serve to explain some topic or idea for the reader, which in an essay would provide much-needed clarity. Here, though, they just clog up the flow of information. Most of these, I think, can be replaced with a hyperlink.

Benjamindkilleen (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Artificial Gravity Peer Review

The information that you added is very focused and relevant, also written in a way that is very easy to understand. The information is also neutral and unbiased with citations and links to other relevant wiki articles. Overall, very interesting and informative! In terms of editing, a couple howevers could be removed and these particular sentence could be reworded:

"However, criticism of those methods lays in the fact that they do not fully eliminate the health problems and require a variety of methods to address all issues."

"Through that means, it would act as a solution in the capacity of never allowing for the opportunity to experience weightlessness" --> By implementing artificial gravity, space travelers would never have to experience weightlessness or the associated side effects.

Whitneygeorge (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Artificial Gravity Peer Review

This is a good contribution, the introduction is much improved. The claims are appropriately neutral and well sourced. One note is that a few of the external Wikipedia links, such as Sporadic or launching, seem a bit random and unnecessary. I’ve left a few specific sections, with suggestions in parentheses below.

This fear was eventually discovered to be unfounded as spaceflights have now lasted over 500 days[16], however the question of human safety in space did launch an investigation into the physical effects of prolonged exposure to weightlessness. (the first half of this is a bit unnecessarily specific)

In an environment without gravity, it was concluded that the response of white blood cells and, due to atrophy of fiber, muscle mass decreased (wording is a bit confusing)

Additionally, simulated gravity in manned spaceflight has been proposed as a solution to the adverse health effects caused by prolonged weightlessness. (this could use citation)

At the moment, there is not ship massive enough to meet the rotation requirements (not should be replaced with no, or not a)

-Jon GreenbergerJonGreenberger (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)