Talk:Huygens principle of double refraction

Suggestions

@Kamalabden Thank you for your contributions. It's almost ok, but you need to fix some details:

1. Delete the title in the first line "Huygens' principle of double refraction", it's not needed (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section).
2. Use bold style only in the lead section
3. use the bullet list for the See also section (and no bold)
4. Create a new section "References" before "External links" section, create a new line after the title "References" and insert the references list tag here (in "edit" mode (visual editor), menu "insert", scroll down, "references list:").
5. Remember to create (as soon as possible) your user page User:Kamalabden (or at least create the userpage on Meta meta:User:Kamalabden, in English). See examples from your course colleagues.

Good work.

Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I edited it. I appreciate your help Kamalabden (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Review

My only suggestion is that there are a lot of headers with small amount of text, maybe you could try to put some of them under one header and use sub-headers. Besides this great work, congratulations! Shoba98 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Review

Nice job! One suggestion could be to introduce a little bit more mathematical treatment of the topic, but otherwise, congratulations for your work! Negretti Fabio (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following an expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in July 2023.

I would like to point out several issues, some are just language polishing, some are more directly related to the content and to possibly misleading formulations: - ‘Observed in uniaxial anisotropic material’ -> ‘observed in a uniaxial anisotropic material’ - ‘On the wavefront of birefringent material’ -> ‘on the wavefront in a birefringent material’ - Caption fig. 4: should be expanded, e.g. ‘Huygens-Fresnel principle for the propagation of a plane and a spherical wavefront in an optically anisotropic medium’ - ‘Understanding and forecasting the classical wave propagation of light is based on the Huygens-Fresnel principle’ -> ‘The Huygens-Fresnel principle provides a possible rationale for the understanding and forecasting of classical wave propagation of light’ - Caption fig. 5: should be expanded, e.g. ‘Huygens-Fresnel principle applied to refraction at the interface between two different optically isotropic materials’ - ‘For example, if the wave propagation is in the z-direction, both the electric field and the magnetic field lie in the xy-plane’ -> ‘lie in a plane parallel to the xy-plane’ (or ‘lie in a plane perpendicular to the z axis’) - Paragraph title ‘Plane wave equation of light’ -> what this paragraph deals with is not an equation, it’s the solution of an equation - ‘phase angle constant’ -> ‘initial phase’ - I find the definition of unpolarized light (“where the electric field vector oscillates in multiple planes”) misleading, since in an optically isotropic medium the wave is still transverse and therefore the electric field belongs to a well defined plane. It is the polarization direction that varies randomly over time. - I also find the definition of “three possible polarization states of light” misleading, since linear and circular polarization are special cases of the most general elliptical polarization. - ‘Plane linear polarized light’ -> ‘Plane linearly polarized light’ - I believe the content of the paragraph “Plane linear polarized light” should be revised. I find that there is some confusion between the plane in which the electric field vector lies and the direction of oscillation, which possibly determines a state of linear polarization. To the best of my knowledge, plane-polarized light is not a common term to be used as a synonym of linearly polarized light and can be misleading. - ‘Light propagating along the optical axis experience’ -> ‘experiences’ - ‘The ordinary ray (o-ray) has a spherical wavefront because the o-ray has a constant refractive index (n₀) independent of propagation direction’, this is not correct, the o-ray experiences the same refractive index independent of POLARIZATION direction (same issue with the following discussion on the E-ray) - Overall, since the article focuses explicitly on the use of the Huygens principle of double refraction, I would have expected that in the last part the discussion of the double refraction would be supported by a drawing that applied the Huygens principle (with spherical and elliptical wavelets) to graphically explain the phenomenon

--Aandurro (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)