User talk:Noah.hirshorn/sandbox

Thank you all for the feedback, what is in the sandbox is ready for grading. Noah.hirshorn (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very engaging and thorough! Comments:

"These low temperatures physically allows vapor particles to travel slow enough to experience these collisions and aggregate into a larger ice crystals". Please check physics of molecular nucleation, e.g. in course notes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephologue (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Aerosols that possess a crystalline structure tend to have tighter bonds to water and are insoluble in water. " Not are what is meant here. Again see notes, particularly with regards to the type of crystalline structure that is required with respect to dimensions of bonds and the hexagonal form. Comment perhaps on the key mineral elements that have this structure as well as AgI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephologue (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of all of the mineral dust ice nucleator particles, silver iodide (AgI) " Silver Iodide is a man-made salt not mineral.

Nice write up Noah. Here my comments:

Homogenous section
- First sentence - I think you mean ‘phase’ instead of ‘face’; correct?
- Skip the detail regards the collisions below -35C and keep it simple.
I am torn on whether the breakout of the different nuclei is too detailed for a snowflake page. It almost deserves it’s own page as it is a nice overview for that alone.

Joayer (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second Joayer's comments; good write up Noah - great amount of research!

I found a few quick sentence edits:
- Missing a word in 3rd sentence of Heterogeneous section, "largely dependent [on?/upon?]..."
- Mineral dust section -- consider removing "another" in the first sentence. While you mention in the heterogeneous section the preferred characteristics of an ice nuclei, this is the first time you list a specific type.
- Last sentence in Biological Aerosols you have double between "between between".
Additional thoughts
- The heading differences between the Heterogeneous Nucleation section and your examples of aerosols is likely adequate but maybe further clarifying that that list refers to various examples of nuclei for heterogenous nucleation may be helpful (again, maybe not necessary but a thought).
- Lastly, in the heterogeneous section, the last sentence states "specific location of ice nucleation" does location refer to altitude? May be worth a clarification there.
- Enjoyed the write up, and great use of hyperlinks throughout!

UMightyMet (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you do a really good job at covering all the different ice nuclei

In the first paragraph you write "larger sized droplets nucleate into ice crystals easier than smaller particle", should it be "smaller particle" or "smaller sized droplet"? If it's supposed to be "smaller particle" maybe saying smaller ice nuclei would be better.
second paragraph: clarify that it's two "water" particles. It's hard to tell if you're talking about aerosols or water nucleating together
"biological aerosols an aerosol type that can trigger ice nucleation at relatively warm temperatures comparably to other aerosol types": this may leave the reader confused thinking "why are you saying it's better when the previous aerosol, mineral dust, had a warmer nucleating temp?"
otherwise, I like how your writeup is straight to the point, good for a wiki article

Baudette (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think the article is very clear and written at a level appropriate for the audience which is good. Here are a few suggestions that I have:

I think it may be helpful to say whether homogenous and heterogenous nucleation can occur simultaneously within a particular cloud or area
It may be useful to lead into the section where you talk about the type of aerosols by adding a "types of aerosols" header or something along those lines
You talk about anthropogenic aerosols so it may be useful to list some examples

Boomersooner16 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article Noah. Here are a few of my suggestions that are mostly grammar related:

In the first section 'Homogeneous Nucleation of Ice Crystals,' maybe break the second sentence into two sentences.
Move your periods at the end of sentences before your citation instead of after.
Consider revising the sentence "Generally speaking, ice nuclei that possess a crystalline structure, have tighter bonds to water, and are insoluble in water are more likely to act as an ice nucleus [2]" to "Ice nuclei that possess a crystalline structure have tighter bonds to water and are insoluble in water. As a result, crystalline ice nuclei are more likely to act as an ice nucleus."
The last sentence at the end of the 'Heterogeneous Nucleation of Ice Crystals' is a bit hard to follow.
Could break up the sentence "The temperature of ice nucleation in the presence of biological aerosols has been observed as high as -4oC making biological aerosols an aerosol type that can trigger ice nucleation at relatively warm temperatures comparably to other aerosol types [1]" into two.
Change "is still an active area of research" to "are still an active area of research" in the anthropogenic aerosols section.
Maybe provide the specific source in parentheses in last sentence of the anthropogenic aerosols section when you say "a different study."

Mpletch1 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the low hanging fruit is taken here for such a well-written article, but

For heterogeneous nucleation remember to differentiate between the general aerosol and ice nucleus. (Aerosol is the general name for any particle while ice nucleus is a specific particle with specific characteristics that you are defining.)
Change "NaCl" to "salt" (not everyone is a chemist)

KYsnowmaker (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the feedback. I have started to make the changes you have suggested. By the time the next person reads it, it should be a draft incorporated with all of your feedback. Thanks again. Noah.hirshorn (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very in-depth discussion! I know this is probably out of scope but would it be worth mentioning if/how the aerosols affect optical properties? I think what you have now is great as is. PaulMcGlynn (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]