@Brian_BH i agree with this suggestion, should we also change oscillation to “displacement” in this card to match the antinodes card
For sure it should be changed to ‘displacement’ to match the other card.
I keep mulling this one over. I’m not 100% sure how I feel about the cloze, tbh. It’s definitely not something where either option is super correct, or super incorrect. But, by having the negation inside the cloze I’m hesitant about the cueing effect of the resulting portion of the sentence outside of the cloze.
It might also be that the most ideal solution involves rewording the sentence, but I haven’t gotten that far in my considerations just yet.
I’ve left it up for the time being to mull over, but for sure I think the ‘displacement’ part is a no-brainer at this point.
Best option is to copy paste the other card and replace antinode with node, and displacement with no displacement. That way it’s identical other than the things being tested on. Unless u wanna reword both then. Up to u.
As I ponder it, my instinct is along the lines of yours in that a better phrasing would be something akin to:
“Antinodes are points of a wave where there is maximum displacement.”
“Nodes are points of a wave where there is zero displacement.”
Firstly, as you mentioned it’s better if the notes have complementary phrasing as opposed to being disjointedly disimilar. Second, leading into a cloze with a positive declaration just to have a negation immediately behind the cloze (“There is {{c1::no…}}”) isn’t my favorite. Hence I think the best correlate to ‘maximum’ in this case should be in reference to quantity/degree, as opposed to simple negation (‘zero’ as opposed to ‘no’).
i agree, sounds much better. Alot of cards could be improved by changing the wording and matchign definitions. I also think some cards with 2 definitions should be split up (like vincinal and geminal diols) cause u may accidentally memorize the position of each answer and they are always in the same order. just an example off the top of my head.
Agreed. A lot of notes, if you look at the note history, I think have just sort of been grandfathered in since who-knows-when. Before my time, for sure.
Some of them might have been casual phrasing by Nick (Anking), some of them may have just been inherited from God-knows-where and just no one has seen fit to change some of them. A lot of this likely stems from the fact that the deck has become, over the years, an amalgamation of a handful of other OG decks. For sure that’s where some of the odd language and inconsistent phrasing stem from.
One of the pitfalls of the MCAT deck is that the user base is, by definition, pretty transient. There are just fewer people using it, and those people tend to come and go in pretty quick succession. As a result, I suspect that a lot of the tune-ups the deck could stand to have just don’t get the stable attention that they might need to really benefit and streamline the deck.
The Step Deck has a whole team of maintainers, and a user base that is about 10x the size. This, of course, creates a whole other set of problems that the MCAT deck doesn’t have, but it certainly solves some of them. 
it would be nice to have a team of maintainers who could each delegate tasks, i feel as if your the only one active on here. I hope u at least get something for the amount of time u spend here.
It would be nice to have a team, for sure. But the transient nature of the exam makes that hard.
Most folks preparing for the MCAT don’t have the spare time, or maybe inclination, to want to proofread and edit a deck. Or, some do but don’t understand the guidelines for submissions so end up suggesting edits that aren’t very useful (but still take time and effort to sift through). Then, once they’re done with the exam, even fewer have the gumption to stick around and revisit the nuances of the syntax of a Lineweaver-Burk card or something.
What little time there is gets divided mostly to just keep up with suggested edits and basic upkeep on the back-end. Imagine doing something really useful, like tagging the UWorld textbooks? It would take…(calculates in head)…a year. It’s a near Herculean task and everyone would like for it to be done, but there’s little appetite to do it. Even the UWorld QBank tagging really only mostly finished a few months ago, and how long has that resource been around?
And of course you add in that people have other lives, other interests, need to pay rent or want to learn Italian, or whatever else under the sun.