Excellent page. Comments:
- " they are very unlikely to be found in nature" Quantify? Also missing ref. 3
- " that are know about today." typo
- Suggest writing something about the comparative rarity of simple pristine ice crystals relative to those that are aggregates (snow) or rimed to varying degrees — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephologue (talk • contribs) 02:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Great work, the page looks awesome and is formatted ready to go for wikipedia. Sources and figures contribute a lot to the page. Here is a bit of feedback on some small edits that can be made. In the first paragraph, I am not sure if using the word "we" is conventional in a wikipedia page, potentially could revisit that. In the second sentence of the second paragraph, consider changing he to Nakaya. Later in that sentence, also consider specifying whether the saturation pressure referred to is that of water or ice. Another question, when you mention the word "forms" are you referring to snowflake formation? Finally, the last sentence of the draft has a lot of information, splitting it into three sections may be beneficial. I know it seems like a lot of feedback but it is all minor, great job again and please let me know if you have any questions. NH Noah.hirshorn (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Feedback incorporated Joayer (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Great idea to consolidate the topic information from the various snow related Wiki pages. It seems our Snowflake page provided a great foundation for that. Two suggestions (both fairly minor) I thought of are:
- Perhaps incorporate the term 'micrographs' noted in the Snow Article (a neat terminology tid-bit I noticed from that page that is also mentioned in the Wilson Bentley image)
- Might reconsider the omission of the "The shape of a snowflake is determined..." paragraph that is currently on the Snowflake Article page but not featured in your draft. Though this material can be inferred by the provided table, it's nice to spell it out in words as well.
Awesome table representing Magono and Lee's work, definite improvement - looks sharp and nicely organized! UMightyMet (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you did a really good job summarizing everything. I like how you changed the crystal category lists into an easy-to-read chart.
- A nit-picky edit I'd suggest is capitalizing all the words in the chart headers to keep formatting consistent.
- One thing I am curious about is if you're combining all these sections together then which wiki page will have this section?
- What may confuse the public is "side-planes, bullet-rosettes and also planar types". What do these things look like? How would you describe them?
Baudette (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
So I'm a bit confused about what you're trying to do. Do you plan to consolidate these into a separate article or are you consolidating them into one of the sections within the snowflake Wikipedia page? I agree with you that is does seem a little repetitive to have similar information on each of the pages that is slightly different, I'm just unclear of how you went about it. A couple of other things:
- I think it may be useful to describe the types of crystal shapes that you are listing, particularly the ones that aren't intuitive. For example, "lacy", "bullet-rosetts", and "capped columns" are difficult to understand without looking up the shapes. Things like "needle" or "planar" are easy enough though that they wouldn't need much of an explanation.
- Personally, I kind of liked the "no two are alike" part that you took out because I thought it would be a familiar idea for most people when phrased that way.
Other than that, I thought it was good and I like your idea to make the information more consolidated and clearer for the reader. Boomersooner16 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Well done,
- "Below saturation, crystals trend more towards solid and compact, while under supersaturated conditions, shapes trend towards lacy, delicate and ornate." is a comma splice. Divide into two sentences at the second comma.
- Your sandbox article was written at a 14.1 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level which is slight higher than the 13.1 of the target "Snow" article. I would recommend generally using shorter, less grammatically complex sentences to match the style of the target articles.
KYsnowmaker (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks great! I think you did a great job at consolidating multiple sections. Would you make the edits to the other pages as well to eliminate redundancies? PaulMcGlynn (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Feedback repsonse
editThank you all for the great suggestions. The biggest confusion seem to be around the strategy on how to publish this. My initial idea was to remove classification from all other pages but the Snowflake one and link to that section from the others. Curious what Wikipedia will think of that idea or if they prefer a different approach. The currently broken references in this sandbox will work again once on the main page since they reference already existing ones in other sections.
Joayer (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The risk perhaps is removing information that is unique to those pages, or that is so integral that a hyperlink will detract rather than add. But if that will not happen, then I think your strategy is reasonable. Nephologue (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)