User:WorldsWanderer/sandbox

Article evaluation
Chosen article: Geological history of Mars


 * Is everything relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The start is about methods of dating. It's not about Mars. I doubt Steno ever worked on Mars, especially in the 17th century. I would also have to check if the law the stratigraphy as Steno defined them are useful for satellite data. The Moon is put at the same level as the Earth but here too I doubt we use the same techniques.
 * Referring to the Earth's Paleozoic etc. is distracting.
 * Section 1 Relative ages from stratigraphy is actually wrong in the way it might be applied to Mars. Rate of deposition are not important for relative ages.
 * Absolute ages referring to the Common Era calendar (why no link?) implies the author has in mind radiocarbon etc. Irrelevant. It's all about the Earth. Of course, as we don't have that information for Mars!
 * Is any information out-of-date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The age information from meteorites, as poor as it is, should be included in detail. Also, the few ages from MSL.
 * Age info could be updated with Stephanie Werner's work. Also, mention the debate between Hartmann and Neukum? How about a graph with the dfinition of ages based on craters?
 * Superpose the mineral and crater timescales?
 * What else could be improved?
 * "these include". Don't really know what "these" relate to.
 * Crater number density is bold. Why? How about applying that to Mars?