User talk:Maa0519/sandbox
Context Memo:
I chose the North Polar Basin page because to me, it seemed to be lacking quite a bit of information, considering it was about a feature that makes up most of the Northern Hemisphere on Mars. The only information it had was a brief paragraph on how scientists believed it was potentially the largest impact basin in the Solar System; nothing about how or what this impact may have done to the planet or its moons, or about the existence of an ancient ocean billions of years ago in this basin.
I think what I have written meets the standards outlined by Wikipedia and that it is acceptable for Wikipedia. All of the sources I drew from were either: reputable scientific publishers, government scientific entities (NASA), and a book on Mars features published by the USGS that the Northeastern library had. I also believe it meets the standards of non-triviality and quality as everything I wrote about was related to the article in some way, and I worked hard to make what I was writing neutral and encyclopedic in nature.
But of course, I am biased as it is my writing, so I look forward to what my peers have to say. Maa0519 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
editHi Maa0519, I will be peer reviewing your article.
Summary: This user is contributing to two separate articles: North Borealis Basin and Vastitas Basin. The North Borealis Basin section discusses the Borealis Basin, a basin that covers a significant amount of Mar's surface. There is a theory that the North Borealis Basin was formed due to a severe impact which would explain the lack of magnetic activity on Mars' northern hemisphere. Additionally, there is a section that provides a possible explanation for how Mars' planets formed as a result of a impact of the Borealis Basin size and evidence to dispute the claim that the planets were the result of asteroid capture. The Vastitas Basin section explains that the Vastitas Basin lies within the North Borealis Basin.
Major Points: The original North Borealis Basin wikipedia article was a stub article that focused primarily on why the basin is so flat. The author does a great job of extending the article to have a more detailed explanation about the North Borealis Basin. I am confused about the section "Ancient tsunamis" and its relation to the North Borealis Basin. Does this pertain to the basin's chemical composition, shape, or general properties? The section "List of large regions within the Borealis Basin (North Polar Basin)" is very wordy for a section title, it should be shorted to something along the lines of "regions with the North Polar Basin." There should also be a "See also" section with related topics. This article's tone is neutral and was understandable with the exception of one sentence in the "Potential formation of Phobos and Deimos via Borealis impact" section that starts with: "Other evidence, such as: the detection of minerals on Phobos that exist in the Martian lithospehere,... ." This sentence's logic was hard to follow and should be broken up. The Vastitas Basin contribution consists of redefining the term Vastitas Basin given that it lies within the North Borealis Basin at not vise versa as what was originally on the wikipedia article, this was clear and straightforward.
Minor Points: The section "Potential formation of Phobos and Deimos via Borealis impact" is also a lengthy title for a subsection, it should be shorted. What does lobate terminal deposits mean in Ancient tsunamis section, perhaps add a link to the wikipedia page that defines it. In the section "Ancient tsunamis" one of the sentences includes the words "the most probable culprit" this seems a bit essay-like to personify the Lomonosov crater. It would be more along the line of an wikipedia style of writing to say something along the lines of: the Lomonosov crater is the most probable source of the hypothetical tsunamis. Plaidscientist (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Plaidscientist