Wikijunior talk:Particles

Target grade level
This book could be very cool. Right now I think it's pitched a bit high for Wikijunior, but any possible redress of that is contingent on clarifying the target audience.

To start with, what is the grade level of the material that this book is initially based on? (I know from nothing about Hong Kong's system, so "chapter 6 of form one" doesn't tell me anything.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Form 1 = Year 7 = Sixth grade Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 08:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC) P.S. 'redress' and 'contigent on' are really tough words for me. This is Wikijunior, you know. :) Had to check the dictionary. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, the authorship seems to waiver between various agegroups, e.g. ("stationary means not moving" then "gases are compressible"). If it's for a younger audience, I would suggest redoing the entire book as a narrative.  Something like "Patty the Particle" and then describing their activities with their particle friends. Nicoletapedia (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the whole book will become OR as the story has never been published before. And if it has, that's a copyright infringement. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO that wouldn't be OR at all, but merely pedagogy :) I will add my (initial) two cents on the reading room topic Kayau started. --Duplode (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how an original character created on Wikibooks can be a copyright violation, since it doesn't exist outside of Wikibooks. I personally think that anthropomorphizing subatomic particles would be an excellent way to teach particle physics to young children.  Something like "Patty the Proton" and "Ellie the Electron," or can one just called them Proton and Electron without giving them alliterative names of course lol.  Nicole Sharp (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured Book Feedback
To have a hope of featured book status, most vital first:
 * Go to wikimedia commons and get loads loads more pictures. Vital for a junior book.  Water/Ice/Steam.  Carbon/Diamond.  Submarines(underwater)/Hot-air-balloon(in flight).  Consider even 'inside an atom'.
 * Really serious content review... Find and fix statements like "Gas particles do not have a fixed shape so you can safely bend them and they won't even break."  Please.
 * Echoing the comments on this page about 'level': cover other simple topics like what happens when salt dissolves? How can I separate salt, sawdust, sand and iron filings?  How big is an atom?  Why do they put salt on roads?  Brownian motion is a more advanced topic, so to me the book seems seriously incomplete for its (apparent) intended level.

JamesCrook (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In any case, thanks for the review! Kayau 14:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm... that sounds like the easy part. :)
 * I think Pi zero will handle that part.
 * What happens when salt dissolves: I do not see why that is more 'simple' than the info stated here. One must have a basic understanding of the particle theory to explain that. How can I separate salt, sawdust, sand and iron filings and Why do they put salt on roads: Er, how is that supposed to be related to particles? (I didn't even know the put salt on roads. :P) How big is an atom: I do not intend to mention atoms and molecules in the book, as it may complicate matters. Brownian motion is a more advanced topic: Actually no, I don't think it's an advanced topic. In fact, I think it's quite a basic concept related to particles.


 * "Particles are infinitesimal, and current scientific instruments cannot see them". If you mean atoms then they do have size and individual Xenon atoms can be seen with a Atomic Force Microscope.  Please fix.  JamesCrook (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The book is called 'Particles'. It looks like a kind of wikijunior introduction to chemistry and states of matter, in which case giving some notion of the difference between a mixture and a compound is called for.  In this sentence "In solids, the particles are cramped together tightly in regular positions"  I can only think the particles you are talking about there are atoms.  But children have heard of particles of dirt, particles of sand, particles of sawdust.  Either you have to tell them that those are not the kinds of particles you mean, and if you do you might as well mention atoms, or you have to be talking about those kinds of particles too.  Those two points at any rate should partially explain my comments about sand and iron filings.  Clearer?  JamesCrook (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the readers should understand that by 'infinitesimal' I mean 'extremely small', not literally infinitely small, which of course is impossible to reach. :) If there is a highly advanced microscope that can see some sort of particles, I don't think I will include this in the book, for the same reason why teachers tell small kids that lines are what you draw with rulers instead of an infinite set of points extending in either direction.
 * About the scope of the book, this is what the message I intended to bring out is that stuff are made of particles according to the particle theory, (assuming that the reader has no previous knowledge of atoms whatsoever), which can explain things with the particle model. It's not intended to be an introduction to chemistry. About the word 'particles', I'm ready to hear your opinion and/or bold fixes. How do you think you could explain to kids about 'heights' and 'altitudes' of triangles, the 'foci' of an ellipse, etc? Kayau 14:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Avoid the word "infinitesimal" when discussing particles unless you really mean "infinitely small". The concept of point particles is quite important in the history of theoretical physics, and so the word should not be used unless that's really what is meant.  Besides, "infinitesimal" is going to increase your Gunning fog index :-).  --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

classical versus modern approach
Just my two cents, but I think that this book is taking too much of a classical approach to the subject (in fact, there is very little right now beyond classical thermodynamics). I do not see any harm in introducing concepts like the equivalency of mass and energy, waves and particles, etc. as early on as possible, particularly to avoid any later confusion with topics in atomic and nuclear physics. A bottom-up approach (e.g. superstrings to quarks to nuclei to atoms to gases) I think is more interesting as well than a more traditional top-down approach as is currently written (covering classical phenomena before moving on to quantum phenomena). Nicole Sharp (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)