Summer of Math Exposition

I am not convinced that the mechanism behind firefly luminescence corresponds to an absorption-emission process. That sounds a lot more like fluorescence.

I think the motivation for this entry is strong, but the medium lets you down. The visuals are distracting. Work on either concise/clear visuals, or a more narrative flow for presenting your idea over the course of a video.

The whimsical theme is lovely, and the pacing of how frequently you switch from the general principles to the specific application to the whimsical story is very well done. The transitions between these sections can be a bit abrupt at times. To improve approwchability, I might even suggest moving the specific examples ahead of the definitions, eg, explain in terms of spoons and trees before you explain in terms of psis and ts

I liked the writing style of the framing device and it does show that the author can make the content quite engaging. Given the complexity of the models, I'm not sure if framing it as a Goldilocks story is appropriate for the audience. I think that with a reframing and focusing on one phenomena and focusing on where the three model fails and how we improve on each one would help to illustrate the need for more complexity.

Firstly, I want to mention that the artwork is very cute! <3 Also, I loved the named GoldiLooks, a nice wordplay there! The article has good intentions and is planned well. I am assuming that this is aimed at introducing someone to optics, so it is understandable to not want to get into the messy details, even if the pedants don't agree. The ideas are communicated in an interesting manner. I liked how the entire article revolved around a story. There are some minor typos and grammatical errors, but nothing too distracting, and the ideas are still communicated clearly. It still would have been better to not have such errors though. I think it would have helped to have animations/GIFs instead of static images in some places, particularly when discussing waves. Also the section on quantum physics seemed to go into far greater detail than necessary for an introductory piece and, in the process, came across as very dry. This is a minor complaint but since this a PDF anyway, it would have been more readable had it been typeset using LaTeX. Or maybe just the equations could have been handwritten. It took effort to read some equations! Overall, the article was good and is something that would make the reader interested in studying optics at a more formal level. I liked it! :)

Clever! However, I'm not sure it's accurate to say "fireflies looks fluorescent because it absorbs invisible photon frequencies and emits visible photon frequencies" From what I read they have a chemical/Oxygen reaction not dependence on other frequencies/UV/infrared? Also how does "teleporting" work - needs much more explanation.

Well, okay. But the mixture of tone was kind of strange. You've got an article whose tone of writing suggests it was written for children, but there is some very demanding vocabulary. Compare to writing by Lewis Carroll, or the Phantom Tollbooth; those were written for children but with vocabulary suitable for children. The other approach would be to go towards the style of Douglas Adams or even Terry Pratchett (e.g. e.g. his Science of Discworld collab). I'm a professional writer and editor, so words are my speciality. The maths looks fine to this layman, but the writing - er, hmm. Not sure it quite works.

I think this project is good, and I like the idea! I think it could've been slightly better implemented, but it's current form is pretty good.