RE: Howto Series | #2 — What makes a scientific post stimulating
I am just going to come in here and say my opinion and leave. As a steemstem curator I must say... I agree. I mean not to say that I may have worded things or changed things or maybe added more but more importantly is I agree with what is on this list you have made.
To expand on things I would add (so criticisms I guess) is firstly, make certain your information presented is accurate. Quite often I have seen/read a post that has some major inaccuracies. I am not talking about something like they used Newtons definition of Gravity instead of Einsteins (depending on the context that can be acceptable) I mean more that they say something that is false like say "voltage is a measurement of energy within protons". Voltage is not a measurement of energy in the protons but that is beyond the scope of this comment.
Another thing for science articles to keep in mind is length. It is really really difficult to make a really good and moving article that is short... But if your article is extremely long then almost nobody is going to actually read the entire thing. Optimally is between 800-1500 words (my experience) however others might have a differing opinion. A rule of thumb is the skirt rule, keep it short enough that it is interesting but long enough to cover all of the interesting details.
Anyways, those are 2 of the bigger items that should be on this list in my opinion but that by no means does that make this post bad. The other curators might have different opinions upon this subject or not, who knows.
hello @kryzsec , good to have another curator dropping by this post ;) thanks for your constructive feedback and I must say, while I agree with many of your points, I need to clarify on one, which is the length of an article. I deliberately omitted that point because I believe some articles require longer explanation and layout while the others might not need a lengthy post to justify their content. I've also come across articles that are lengthy yet badly written, and short ones but concise and succinct. But I understand where you're coming from this stance and I must agree with you on this...
I noticed that the good ones fall in this range. But I didn't wanna to specify and emphasize on the length because I also don't want authors to vomit those words just to make up the length of the content, at the same time neglecting what's most important - the gist.
True to that. As aforementioned, a short and poorly executed content is a no-go, likewise for the longer form contents. Authors should be focusing in the quality of their gist. Best way is to check whether their key points, explanation and examples will make the readers go 'wow' or 'meh'..
Last but not well, we can all agree that ...
You couldn't have said it better :)
I completely agree that when they just try to find filler then it is just, well its obvious. As well though I find that a lot of posts could add so much more than they do, like they have so much potential and then the word count comes to like 300 ish words and it makes it seem like they didn't try very hard on it.
All in all though, its really awesome that you were open to this discussion, maybe if any of your readers read the comments as well then they can learn something here too!