Talk:Mapping of Venus

Manga Jenny's review
Halo :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Halo jupjup, here are some minor suggestions:

1.	In the section ‘Magellan Mission’, may also introduce readers to the main page of ‘synthetic aperture radar’ besides that of the spacecraft, because the radar is the major focus here.

2.	May list the names of all 12 stratigraphic units together before explaining each of them. It may be easier for beginner to comprehend the whole picture.

3.	For the examples of Quadrangles' Mapping of Venusian Geological Units, the groups and units (in bold) could be more clearly represented using bullet point or table form.

Besides, the page has very rich content and vivid graphics!

Manngaa Jenny (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ms Lau's review
Hello jupjup:D

Here are some of suggestions:
 * A bigger heading for 'Geological Mapping on Venus' should be used.
 * It would be better if you can enlarge the diagrams on the sides. Some of them are a bit too small and I have to click into the diagrams to examine for the details. It would save some time if those diagrams are big enough on the page.
 * For the section 'Topography and surface observation', I think you could add a paragraph briefly introduce the observations, or summarise some important points from the main articles linked in the section.

Overall, your page is really entertaining! Your page is very rich in content and some sections are linked to other main articles, allowing readers to look up other information more easily. Thumbs up!

Roberta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertalau1228 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I know you can't please everyone but several of the images are actually overlarge and cause problems with the of the images and tables below them, creating ugly white space. The default size of images is just 220px and people can click through for more detail. That said, in an article about mapping, you are going to want for some of the images to be rather large and easily viewed while reading the page itself. —  Llywelyn II   12:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ms Yip I's review
Hi Jupiter. I have some comments for you.

It is very nice that you include abundant information on your wiki page, from history, observation method and to the discovery. With suitable images, I can have a good understanding of your idea. I am mostly impressed by the GIF “Global surface of Venus”, “formation of Shield Domes” and the series of “Accruva Formation”, which have beautifully outlined Venus and clearly show the development of the structures. However, I want to know why in Section 4 Topography and surface observations, there is only the title with the main article stated without information. Do you leave out something?

Lydia_yip (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Mr Fung's review
Hello Jupiter, your article is very decent already and I only have a few suggestions.

1. In the section ‘Examples of Geological Mapping’, I suggest that you can group the units to tessera material, plains materials, materials of coronae and materials of domes and miscellaneous flows in the map, so that instead of showing more than 10 units on the maps, show only 4 colors, which will make readers easier to understand.

2. I have noticed that many of the content are uncited, maybe because you write some sections per another wiki article. Anyway, you should add more citation to reinforce your statements, for example in the sections ‘Controversial difference between different mapping scheme’ and ‘Examples of Geological Mapping’. I understand you have papers to cite your statements, but you should cite them more often, i.e. cite multiple times for a single source.

3. Moreover, it seems to me that many of your images are taken from NASA. Although it is a public domain, the source of the image should be given, preferably in the caption. Usually there is a guideline from NASA indicating that how you should cite them. I can see that some of your images are cited, while some of them still need citations.

Cheers! Jeffrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyfung (talk • contribs) 10:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't actually need to spam all the image captions with attributions to NASA. The images link to their pages on Wikimedia Commons and all of that information is there. It may be helpful and pertinent to mention the probes or projects that produced the images, however, may of which would have been carried out under NASA's aegis. — Llywelyn II   12:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ms Hitchcock's review
Hello Jupiter. I think your article is very interesting and well researched. There are not many things I can suggest but here are a couple.

-Am I correct in saying that the radar back scatter (that you refer to in ‘Different Venus' unit classification and their mapping schemes’ section) is the echo of the radar onto Venus’ surface? If it is then I think you should state the actual term ‘radar back scatter’ in the section on the SAR images because this would make obvious to the reader that you have already described what it is above.

-In the section on ’Tectonic units’ could you give an example to give the reader an idea of the sizes of tectonic units because geological materials seems to vary considerably over short distance of the surface. Maybe you could say if these tectonic units are at all relatable to modern day Earth’s plate tectonics.

- It always helps to relate to Earth features where you can and maybe summarise sections more because I found myself looking back up at what I had read and re-reading it so that I could follow what each section was about. Some minor changes to grammar and punctuation could make it clearer in places too.

It was very good and detailed page! Beth — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHitchcock (talk • contribs) 10:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that Earth-based comparisons could be useful but they should be rather sparing and famous. England's tendency to turn everything into comparisons to the size of Wales isn't very helpful to anyone except the Welsh. The grammar and punctuation still need work... — Llywelyn II   12:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ms Yip II's review
A rich informative article, with detailed descriptions and illustrations. Below are some comments for this article.

1. I think '(which will be discussed later)' needs not appear in the lead since the content of the lead is deemed to be discussed in the following sections. That is the purpose of the lead.

2. Some of the images are a bit oversized. It is good to include images to illustrate the points. But too many big images may make readers feel uncomfortable when reading. I suggest diminishing images that are not the most important ones or those that do not require readers to read with the passages at the same time. They can always click on the images for larger sizes.

3. In some sections, 'see also' instead of 'main article' should be used. For example, 'Stratigraphic units' and 'Tectonic units'. Since the sections are describing Stratigraphic units specific in Venus but not Stratigraphic units as a general term in geology.

4. Citation is missing in some parts, especially when point form is used to list out the content.

SkylYip (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Very solid points. I agree entirely and, while some have been fixed, the important section on #Topography is still lacking sourcing. — Llywelyn II   12:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The article needs a thorough overhaul
None of these concerns are terribly important from a perspective, but they should be addressed at some point:


 * The grammar needs work in numerous places.
 * Several section titles need work as well.
 * The layout of the images also needs work.

The layout is the big thing: There doesn't seem to be any inherent logical structure at all, with "Proposed Future [sic] ... Mapping" included in the "Background" section and differences between the mapping schemes covered in a separate section instead of explained as part of their own sections. The article probably needs a complete rebuild along the lines of standard Wikipedia layout with an eye towards distinguishing its from Geology of Venus. This is essentially a forked subsection of Geology of Venus and should mesh better with it, avoiding duplication but harmonizing its phrasing and coverage. The coverage of the three main mapping schemes is much too detailed and unorganized and should be ed into separate subpages with an overview left here. The previous title was in violation of but I already fixed that.

Now, that said, I understand that this is apparently a school project and, despite its stylistic failings, it's still a solid and well-sourced addition to Wikipedia about a great topic, so thank yous to the student and teacher for getting this done. The overdetailed sections on the mapping schemes are actually just a byproduct of a pretty thorough job, so no complaints there. Just something to work on down the road. — Llywelyn II   12:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the article's scope, it would make sense as "Geologic mapping of Venus". There's a lot of fodder there in methods and landforms, much of which the parent article may never as deep into. And it can do that while being able to avoid things like geodesy, geochemistry, bulk composition, planetary structure, and historical geology. Geogene (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article used to be called that prior to 21 December 2016‎. It was the intended name. But geochemistry, bulk composition, planetary structure,  do not really belong so much in a mapping or geological mapping article, but would belong in a Geology of Venus article. Do you think the article should be moved back? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand the content better knowing that. There's a subtle difference between (radar) mapping, which is mostly straightforward data acquisition, and geologic mapping, which is very speculative data interpretation. But I think it should stay "Mapping of Venus" until it grows enough to spin off a "geologic mapping" article. The move is good. Geogene (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Partisan
The article seems to have an agenda, namely setting out Ivanov and Head's stratigraphic framework, advocating for it as the best, and then taking a few poorly sourced shots at rivals. This kind of advocacy is perfectly natural for scientific papers but not appropriate for a pseudonymous encyclopedia aimed at a non-technical audience. Geogene (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding as an addendum: this kind of thing happens when you rely too much on primary sources, eg, the most recent paper will tend to portray itself as superior to whatever was done before. Without secondary sources this natural bias tends to find its way in the article. Geogene (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Cytherography" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cytherography&redirect=no Cytherography] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)