Template:Did you know nominations/Geological mapping of Venus


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BencherliteTalk 21:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Geological mapping of Venus

 * ... that mapping of Venus has divided its surface into 62 regions?
 * Reviewed: Kenneth A. Gewertz second of double

Moved to mainspace by Jupmira104 (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 01:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC).


 * This is so cool. On it. — Llywelyn II   04:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Timely; well long enough (~25k elig. chars.); policy... well, there are several problems but I've moved them to the article's talk page since none of them are dispositive for purposes except for the article being at the wrong namespace, which I fixed; Mr Bartlett's QPQ done. Added image that's free of copyright. I think it's a little off, since it should be tilted, [only 3°, so no need] but it's still a fun image. To head off any objections by Mr Tyson, is it turning the right way? [Venus rotates clockwise, with the sun rising in the west once every 240ish days...]

Just a reminder to Mssrs. Mira and/or Barlett to let me know once there's a sourced hook to review. — Llywelyn II   13:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, the real problem is the hook. It's not that "mapping of Venus" has found that it naturally divides into 62 sections (which would have been fascinating to read about): It's that the US Geological Survey (only) cut up its coordinates into 62 fairly equal-sized areas for mapping purposes (which should be noted but is kinda pointless—it's entirely arbitrary and has nothing to do with the features of Venus). I suggest something from the info about the surface features (but that section is currently completely unsourced) or something about how and why there are three different methods for classifying the info about the surface. — Llywelyn II   05:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ... that, because the surface of Venus cannot be seen, mapping of Venus has to be done using radar?
 * ALT2 ... that, although Venus is completely covered in thick clouds, it can be mapped using radar?
 * Proposing two alts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I know that both of those are true but neither is sourced in the article. There's nothing sourced about the cloud cover and, while the use of radar is mentioned and sourced, there's nothing about it being necessary or the only option. — Llywelyn II   12:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will see what extra hooks we can come up with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg This still has no valid hooks. Marking for deletion, though of course if a new hook shows up before this is closed the nomination will proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)