User talk:Tovarg/sandbox

This will really expand the VPL stub. Right now I think your plans are fantastic, and this will be an excellent article. I particularly like your focus on the particular research, and astronomers, associated with the VPL. More often than not that gets glossed over in wiki articles. I can't make many comments on the content yet, since it still needs to be written. I do suggest you watch how many links you include in the final article. There's so much information here you could include a lot of links, but I would avoid saturating the article. That's a really presumptuous suggestion, but I wanted to say something useful. :) Malthorp (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the current VPL site is such a good idea! Adding a research section is great, and it will provide some great depth for people who are really interested in VPL. Your focus on Models, Education & Outreach, and VPL in the News will provide really good information for people who really want to look into how VPL works, and how they might be able to get involved. This definitely seems like a big task, but I am confident you can do it! Drenniks (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice outline, somewhat ambitious but great if you have the time to fill it in. If not, concentrate on a few inputs. I especially like the VPL in the news section which is easy to reference and should be interesting to readers. Pzaula (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great outline! You could consider mentioning Rory's paper and Vikki's paper in the introduction, because that is likely how many people would end up on the VPL wiki page. The sections you have laid out look like a strong overview. You could also add a brief history section to give some background. Great start! Nksaunders (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice outline! Shoot me an email when you put some sentences in it, and I'll give it a look over! Overall, good stuff and look forward to the final product.Klar2d2 (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back and comment once more details have been fleshed out. Cwlind1997 (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article evaluation (Planetary Atmos)

Ice Albedo Feedback - needs more sources - needs more content/sections -stub class rating on wikipedia

Atmosphere of Titan - rating='B' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tovarg (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atmosphere of Titan Peer Review (Rudy)

Atmospheric Composition and Chemistry

Add the timeline at the bottom of this into the observational history section

Atmospheric Evolution

When you write "NH3 (ammonia) ," the comma is a bit separated
Maybe add another sentence defining what ice Ih is
Can add a reference to hydrodynamic escape where currently there is a red-link to "hydrodynamic blowoff event"
"insignificant concentration of 36Ar and 38Ar also indicates that the ~40 K temperature required to trap them and N2 in clathrates did not exist in the Saturnian subnebula. Instead, the temperature may have been higher than 75 K, limiting even the accumulation of NH3 as hydrates.[40] Temperatures would have been even higher in the Jovian subnebula due" What are subnebulas?
"The difference suggests that cometary material is unlikely to be the major contributor to Titan's atmosphere" has citation needed and dubious discuss tags. Should those still be there? Does it need a source, does it need further discussion or a qualifying sentence?