> does not refer to the simplicity of the explanation/exposition, only to the simplicity of the language
> Sure, but the use of simple language commonly seems to play out in easier to follow explanations of things on Simple Wikipedia.
I explicitly acknowledged this in my comment: "It's true you might find a explanation on SEW that you find simpler or easier than on the regular English Wikipedia page, and this might (or might not) be because the constraint of using simple English forces it."
> I appreciate your confidence, but I find the topic almost unintelligible. I dare say a science educator or the like would make a more reliable job of it. Plus, I'm not sure articles should be dumbed down, because for topics I do understand, I would find it annoying if Wikipedia entries were boiled down into layman's terms.
The article should be intelligible to its intended audience. If that audience includes non-experts, the article should include descriptions that are intelligible to non-experts. This does not require removing expert-level descriptions, although it is good to warn the reader of what sections can be understood at what level. Depending on the circumstance, it may also be appropriate to split the discussion into two articles, as is done with the Introduction to Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics articles:
There are some articles on Wikipedia that are essentially only of interest to experts, and here it is probably not worth the effort to make them accessible, but the Negative Temperatures article is not one of them. It should include laymen understandable descriptions in addition to ones more useful to experts.
I must again emphasize: Simple English Wikipedia is for Simple English language. It's not Non-Technical Wikipedia and it's not for dumbing down anything. If something's not appropriate for the regular English Wikipedia, it's not appropriate for Simple English Wikipedia.
I explicitly acknowledged this in my comment: "It's true you might find a explanation on SEW that you find simpler or easier than on the regular English Wikipedia page, and this might (or might not) be because the constraint of using simple English forces it."
> I appreciate your confidence, but I find the topic almost unintelligible. I dare say a science educator or the like would make a more reliable job of it. Plus, I'm not sure articles should be dumbed down, because for topics I do understand, I would find it annoying if Wikipedia entries were boiled down into layman's terms.
The article should be intelligible to its intended audience. If that audience includes non-experts, the article should include descriptions that are intelligible to non-experts. This does not require removing expert-level descriptions, although it is good to warn the reader of what sections can be understood at what level. Depending on the circumstance, it may also be appropriate to split the discussion into two articles, as is done with the Introduction to Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
There are some articles on Wikipedia that are essentially only of interest to experts, and here it is probably not worth the effort to make them accessible, but the Negative Temperatures article is not one of them. It should include laymen understandable descriptions in addition to ones more useful to experts.
I must again emphasize: Simple English Wikipedia is for Simple English language. It's not Non-Technical Wikipedia and it's not for dumbing down anything. If something's not appropriate for the regular English Wikipedia, it's not appropriate for Simple English Wikipedia.