User talk:Logger9/Glass transition

Your intro is looking pretty good, and for the most part is very easy to read. The last line in Paragraph #2 has too many verbs in it, making it somewhat hard to read, and singular/plural verbs are in the wrong place. (Probably just a typo.) "These events are known to occur is what is..." just doesn't read right. Perhaps, something like: "These events, known to occur, are what is...", or "These events are known to occur, and are what is..."

The last paragraph could use a little expanding upon. (How does agreeing on a standard cooling rate or requiring a viscosity help?)

The intro should lightly touch upon each section that comes after it, such as Classes of materials, Transition temp, and Plastic deformation in elastic solids, answering the question, "Why does this stuff matter to the article?" Once this is taken care of, it'll be much harder for people to dispute the relevance of the material. Zaereth (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some commas to one of my suggestions above. There are many rules about the use of commas, many of which contradict each other, but that's the beauty of the English language. It's more art than science. The best rule of thumb is: if you would pause somewhere while speaking it, there should probably be a comma there. However, if going for a long or dramatic pause ... use an elipsis.

Also, one more note on the basic rules of journalism ... try to think of it as a fractal pattern of writing, where this concept applies to the article as a whole, to each individual section, and even to each paragraph and sentence. There is actually an order of importance in the seven possible questions, and in that order is What, Where, When, Who, Why, How, and Does/Do, (in journalism we never touch Does/Do). Zaereth (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]