User talk:Logger9/Liquid

Introduction section

In the interest of getting this going, I'm going to go through this line by line. I think what you have for both the lede and intro can be worked into an acceptable introduction.

Line 1 & 2: Matter is generally found in three different forms: solid, liquid and gas (or vapor). Thus a liquid is one of the principal states of matter. It is really best to start any section with the subject. (Liquid, not matter.) I'd combine these two sentences: Liquid is one of the three principal states of matter, with the others being solid and gas.

Excellent. -- logger9 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Line 3: A liquid is a fluid which, unlike the crystalline solid, exhibits a significant degree of atomic and/or molecular mobility. Describing the differences between solid and liquid. Good, but let's see if we can simplify this. I think it's a little early to get into off topic subjects such as crystal. How about: A liquid is a fluid. Unlike a solid, the atoms in a liquid have a much greater freedom to move.

Good: "This is known as molecular mobility". -- logger9 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Line 4: Thus, matter is discontinuous, composed of discrete, individual particles called atoms which are in a state of constant, random motion. Try to avoid overuse of the adverb "thus." I'd expect any 10th grader to know about atoms, but we have a link in the previous sentence. I would cut this sentence almost entirely.

I don't think that many 10th graders are aware of atomic motion. I know that I wasn't. -- logger9 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Line 5 and 6: Strong forces of interaction (both repulsive and attractive) compete to bind the atoms of any solid object together firmly, while the bonds of the corresponding liquid will remain temporary in nature. This is what distinguishes the mechanical properties (e.g. rigidity and shear strength) in condensed matter between the liquid and solid state. Try to make the subject of the article the primary subject of your sentences. These should begin with liquid, not solid. Simplifying: The forces that bond the atoms together in a solid are only temporary in a liquid, allowing a liquid to flow while a solid remains rigid.

Very good !! -- logger9 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that leaves us with an opening paragraph that reads:

Liquid is one of the three principal states of matter, with the others being solid and gas. A liquid is a fluid. Unlike a solid, the atoms in a liquid have a much greater freedom to move. The forces that bond the atoms together in a solid are only temporary in a liquid, allowing a liquid to flow while a solid remains rigid.

Does that look acceptable for an opening paragraph for the intro? I will provide some more advice as time permits. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good -- but I would prefer the following:

Liquid is one of the three principal states of matter, with the others being solid and gas. A liquid is a fluid. Unlike a solid, the atoms in a fluid have a much greater freedom to move. Thus, matter is discontinuous, composed of discrete, individual particles called atoms which are in a state of constant, random motion. The forces that bond the atoms together in a solid are only temporary in a liquid. This molecular mobility makes liquids deformable and subject to flow on various spatial scales, while a solid remains rigid.

-- logger9 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, as the topic of motion is very important, for it directly relates to temperature. Is ther a way to simplify it a bit?

I understand why you want to include it now, but would further paragraphs would be a better place? It's kind of an excercise in redundency in this manner, but this is just an intro paragraph. Further paragraphs should expand on everything described in the intro paragraph in sufficient detail to prepare the reader for the following sections. Start out by planting seeds of knowledge that will gradually bloom and grow roots as the reading progresses.

The first sentence of the opening paragraph is an intro sentence, and is expanded upon by the paragraph. The second sentence of the intro paragraph is a content sentence, and should be expanded upon by the next paragraph. The third sentence is expanded on in the third paragraph, etc... If 5 or 6 paragraphs are necessary, then we may need more sentences in the first paragraph covering them.

At the end of the intro section, a summary paragraph should be included. Unlike the lede, the intro section should do more than simply define the subject (what), but also summarize everything that will be found in following sections. The intro section should answer the factual questions (what, where, when, who) and avoid technical and theoretical questions, (how and why), unlike the following sections.

I hope that our differing expertize can benefit each other. I will try to comment on the next few paragraphs later today, but after that I'll be on vacation for a week, and will not be able to respond. Zaereth (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 2

Line 1: In order to visualize the arrangement of atoms or molecules in a typical liquid, it is helpful to recognize the relationship between the long-range order present in the crystalline solid state and the short-range order present in a typical liquid, both exhibiting similar densities. A bit of a run on sentence. It is very helpful to read your work aloud, so that awkward senteces will show themselves better; places where commas belong stand out, etc... The qualifying phrases, "In order to visualize..." "It is helpful to recognize..." can go. (Phrases such as this are used in teaching, but the purpose here is not to teach. It is simply to relay the facts. This is why you get a lot of people screaming WP:NOTTEXTBOOK at you.) I had to look up long and short range orders, and think this is a little advanced for the intro. I'd start out with: The atoms and molecules in both a liquid and a solid are spaced fairly close together, and so exhibit similar densities.

Line 2: Moreoever, the solid state of matter is characterized by a distinct structural rigidity and resistance to deformation (that is changes of shape and/or volume). This sentence is pretty good, but I personally would start with the simpler terms to explain the technical terms to follow. Remove the qualifier "moreover" and change some of the larger words: The solid state of matter is different from liquid because the atoms are usually locked into very specific arrangements, forming crystals. Solids resist changes in shape, called deformation, and, therefore, display the property of rigidity.

Line 3: This contrasts with liquids, which exhibit a much higher degree of atomic and/or molecular mobility, and thus exhibit the capacity not only for microscopic rearrangements in structure, but for macroscopic viscous flow. This is pretty good too, but let's try to dumb it down for the kids: In contrast, the atoms in a liquid have much more freedom to move around, which allows them to easily rearrange themselves on microscopic scales, which becomes flow on larger scales.

Line 4: The branch of physics that deals with both liquids and solids is called condensed matter physics. This pretty good the way it is, but may need an opening statement to tie it all together. Since the atoms in solids and liquids are closely spaced, the branch of physics that deals with both is called condensed matter physics.

That leaves:

The atoms and molecules in both a liquid and a solid are spaced fairly close together, and so exhibit similar densities. The solid state of matter is different from liquid because the atoms are usually locked into very specific arrangements, forming crystals. Solids resist changes in shape, called deformation, and, therefore, display the property of rigidity. In contrast, the atoms in a liquid have much more freedom to move around, which allows them to easily rearrange themselves on microscopic scales, which becomes flow on larger scales. Since the atoms in solids and liquids are closely spaced, the branch of physics that deals with both is called condensed matter physics.

How does that look? These are just rcommendations on how to better rearrange you sentence structure for better flow. (No pun intended.) I have to go for the holiday, but will be back in a week. I think, that if you rewrite the intro, and the rest of your work, in such a straight forward, conversational manner, instead of an instructional one, then you will probably gain more support from others. Happy Thanksgiving!:-D Zaereth (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 3

Line 1 Thermal energy manifests itself at the atomic level as energy of atomic motion. This is the liquid article, and not the heat article. This info should be saved for later.

Line 2-4 Gases (or vapors) have enough thermal energy to overcome interatomic attractive forces. This additional degree of freedom manifests itself in their long range translational motion. However, as the temperature drops (or volume is restricted), particles begin to bind together or aggregate into what physicists refer to as condensed matter. This is getting a bit off topic. It should be explained a bit better, but should focus on the liquid state.

Line 5 Liquid particles are bound firmly but not rigidly, so that they are able to move around one another freely, resulting in a limited degree of particle mobility. This is pretty good. I'd start with this.

Line 6-7 Thus, atoms in the liquid state of matter are characterized by their limited degree of short range translational motion. Particle displacement is possible, resulting in both microscopic and macroscopic flow. Remember, avoid the word "thus," or any other word meant to lead the reader to a conclusion. Much of this is a repeat of line 5, so I'd rewrite this paragraph as follows:

Liquid particles are bound firmly but not rigidly. They are able to move around one another freely, resulting in a limited degree of particle mobility. This freedom for the atoms to move results from the temperature of the material. Heat is the vibrational motion of the atoms, so as temperature increases the vibration causes distances between the atoms to increase. When a liquid reaches its boiling point, the cohesive forces that bind the atoms closely together break, and the liquid changes to its gaseous state. If the temperature is decreased, the distances between the atoms become smaller. When the liquid reaches its freezing point the atoms will usually lock into a very specific order, called crystalizing, and the bonds between them become more rigid, changing the liquid into its solid state.

Paragraph 4

Much work has been done to elucidate the primary microstructural features of liquids at both small (microscopic) and large (macroscopic) scales. One emerging school of thought is that a liquid is simply the "limiting case" of a polycrystalline solid at small grain size. Within this framework, domains, exhibiting various degrees of short-range order, become the building blocks of liquids as well as solids. One sinmple observation supporting this school of thought is the strong similarity in density between the two distinct forms of matter. The microstructural defects of both within and between these domains provide the natural sites for atomic diffusion, and the occurrence of viscous flow and plastic deformation. This paragraph is a problem, for it appears to be a classic case of synthesis. Key phases such as "schools of thought" and "much work has been done" are indicators. These are often referred to as weasel words. (They say... Sources indicate... etc...) I do not have access to your sources, but even to me it appears that you're providing multiple sources to lead the readers to a conclusion. This sort of synthesis is never permissable. It works for teaching, but we're not here to teach, just to provide the tools.

I would save the theories for further sections. But be careful to treat theories separately, and do not combine them to lead us to conclude something. If you have gained some insight from them, then I would suggest getting it published by a reputable source. When it becomes accepted theory in its own right, only then can it go into Wikipedia. This is probably the biggest cause of the problems you've encountered here. Stick to the facts. Give the facts about theories, but do not theorize yourself.

I would cut this entire paragraph from the intro, and give the exact theories in appropriate places. Zaereth (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction