Wikipedia:Peer review/Mars/archive1

Mars edit

This article is progressing well, and could use some outside help, to possibly promote it to FA status. Tuvas 16:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. It's out of my fielf, so I'll give some aesthetic thoughts:

The article's name generally shouldn't be repeated in section headings, nor should such headings lead with "The," per WP:MOSHEAD.
The navigation box should go at the bottom, or be removed (I prefer removal since you link to the main article).
Arguably, you could simply remove the headings from 4.1 and 5.1, as the leads of those sections are very brief. Similarly, "Topography" and "Mountains and craters" are awfully brief; would it be possible to strip them of their headers, and put their links below the consolidated text?
Would it make sense to group "Orbital characteristics" and "Life on "Mars" under "Physical Characteristcs?"
Similarly, "Name," "Mars in human culture," "Mars in fiction," and possibly "Observing Mars" could all go under one heading, something like "Human observation and culture," including the discussion of the East Asian names currently in the lead.--Monocrat 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made some of the suggestions, alot of merging of sections. I'll continue to look for ways to merge the smaller sections. Tuvas 18:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice, but... I have a few comments:

Could you add an in-line reference for the data in the info-box?
What is the latitude for the temperature range? Is that the mean for the entire surface? The mean at some latitude?
I'm pretty dubious about that "proposed flag" of Mars section. Unless it has been adopted by an international governing body, it seems to be taking up more space than it deserves. A link should suffice.
A sentence or two on co-orbital satellites (c.f. 5261 Eureka) would be nice. Also is there anything about Martian asteroid bombardment history?
Could you add some information about martian dust storms? That would seem like a significant topic. Also is there some information about surface radiation from space due to the thin atmosphere?
Sorry but I don't consider 0.093 to be a "fairly high eccentricity". It is relatively high compared to most planets, yes, but compare to 0.967 for Comet Halley or 0.927 for HD 80606 b.

Thanks! :-) —

I've added a climate section, which covers the dust storms, and the temporature range somewhat better. I've removed the flag section, it really doesn't belong in the article, I'll agree. I've made statements as to the eccentricity. I've added a link to HD 80606 b. I think I'll play with the wording a bit more on the eccentricity as well.

Still to be done could be some information on radiation, although I'm not too sure if that's needed. Tuvas 16:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the radiation topic is already covered on the Colonization of Mars page, where it's probably more appropriate. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other thought is that you could compare the Mars page to the already FA'd Mercury (planet) page and see how well it holds up. If nothing else I think the Mars page needs more in-line citations to back up the important elements. — RJH (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed;-) I've added about 20 or so in-line citations, with another 10 or so to be placed. The article is now fairly throughly referenced. Other than that, I'd say things are looking decent, but I would still like some more input. Tuvas 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is improved! I'll reiterate that I think you could dispense with separate headings for "Topography" and "Mountains and craters" and simply massage the text into one large "Geography" section. I'll also reiterate that you could also dispense with the headings for 2.6.1, 4.1, and 5.1: my personal taste is to use headings only when there's enough for two substantial sections. In any case, I'm unsure if you really need citations for all of those works referencing Mars. People can click on the wikilinks to find more details. Sorry to repeat myself so much! I'll give it a closer reading soon for writing suggestions.--Monocrat 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've combined the Geography aspects, they were pretty much the same. I've restructured the rest so that now if there is a subsection, there is at least two;-) As for references, well, the last time it was a FAC, it was rejected in part due to the lack of in-line references, so... Tuvas 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Again, sorry to be a pain about those headings. ;) As for in-line citations: I think they're only needed for controversial statements or really detailed claims, so I'm still ambivalent. But I sympathize with your concern. Just find something to plug up those nasty "citation needed" marks. ;) Something I forgot earlier was that the navigation box for the probes and missions really should go (so it seems to me). Most of them seem to be linked in the text, so the box just takes up space. Also, Mercury seems to have several other sections, perhaps you could find similar material? Venus is also undergoing FAC, so perhaps you should check that out, too?--Monocrat 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Venus and Mercury have more sections about the exploration of the planet than Mars, but Mars has a whole article dedicated to that, probably at least as large as the current one is. I almost hate to take the infobox away though, but, I suspect your right... Oh well... Thanks for the input! As to the sectional headers, well, I know that those types of little things really make a big difference. I'm working on plugging up the citations needed, just give me a day or two... It's not as easy as it looks... Tuvas 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that the infobox should be kept. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 21:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]