Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mars/Archive2

Mars
Nominating this article for FA, is done quite well, and contains much important information. Previously nomination Recent Peer Review Tuvas 16:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak object : This article would seem to be a prime example on the necessity of summary style, but I question some of the choices on what is included and what isn't.  For example, there is an entire section on "Astronomy on Mars", while sections on the geology and climate of Mars are not well treated (or are skewed toward the perspective of recent Mars landers). Even the daughter articles appear short and do not cover the subject well.  Very little on impact cratering on Mars.  The most prominent features on Mars get nothing more than a brief mention.  I understand this article is long as it is, but perhaps improved selection of what to discuss, and what can be best left in the "See Also" section, could allow this article to improve its coverage to the topic while not growing substantially. --Volcanopele 20:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For guidance on improving the article, please look to the Portugese version, which is a featured article in that language's Wikipedia. While I can only scan through the article, the apparent depth is what I would consider appropriate for a topic of this magnitude.  After re-reading this article, I am changing my vote to an Oppose, based on Criteria 2b. --Volcanopele 00:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

--Volcanopele 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: Surely almost 50 citations is enough to be getting on with. The article seems to skew toward human observation, in much the same way that every single Wiki "notable event" skews to the last 100 years (or even since 1990 for that matter). The fact that the rovers represent the newest knowledge should not change the de facto skew policy. Tdslappy
 * But this isn't about a current event. This about the entire planet Mars, and more discussion about what is going on around the rest of the planet, like results from the other spacecraft currently in orbit around Mars.  And the two paragraphs actually on surface features observed on Mars doesn't do the planet justice.
 * That detail is more than effectively covered in sub-articles, which is where I'd rather it. Tdslappy
 * I understand if most of the detail has to go to sub-articles (which could be VASTLY improved as well, particularly the geology sub-article). But ONE paragraph to cover the diversity of surface features on Mars on the main article is not covering the topic comprehensively.  No mention of the gullies along crater walls.  No mention of river-like channels.  Yet, we have an entire paragraph on how the prime meridian was determined... --Volcanopele 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Most of the references to the recent probes/landers in the Physical characteristics section can be removed. For example, "data from the Mars Exploration Rovers indicates the suspended dust particles are roughly 1.5 micrometres across" can be simplified to "the suspended dust particles are roughly 1.5 micrometres across"; "In March 2004 the Mars Express Orbiter reported they had found methane in the Martian atmosphere, with a concentration of about 10 ppb by volume" can be simplified to "Methane exists in the Martian atmosphere at a concentration of about 10 ppb by volume"; and on and on throughout the article. Very little mention of the exploration of Mars should be in the Physical characteristics section; that's what the Exploration section is for. The citations are there for a reason; use them. In addition, I think it would be beneficial to include a section about how Mars has been perceived throughout the centuries. Take the sentence "For many years, the standard notion of the planet was a drying, cooling, dying world with ancient civilizations constructing irrigation works." It's slightly misplaced currently (it's not about Mars in fiction, only relates to it), and it would be interesting to know what the Greeks/Egyptians/Romans, the Medieval centuries, the world post-Galileo, the world pre-Mariner/Voyager, and the world today perceives/believes/understands about Mars. Not a big section - just a sentence on each one, probably. But that would but the whole thing in perspective better. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really like the article, but Zafiroblue's recommendations are very good ones. If I had to choose between support and object, I'd support, but I would far rather see the recommendations taken on board and then have a very easy time of suporting.  Crowbait 14:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have looked over the article, and I think I've managed to remove all references of a spacecraft leading to a new bit of knowledge, with the exception of the life section. I think that whole section should be rewritten, but, I don't have time to do it right now. I will work on adding more of the perceived views of the planet, not sure where yet, when I get the chance. Tuvas 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object The prose is not compelling or, at times, even scientific. Martian dust devils are known to be passing over the Rovers, cleaning their solar panels, and thus extending their lifespan.[34]  On August 12, 2005 the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter probe was launched toward the planet, to conduct a two-year science survey. The purpose of the mission is to do more studies and prepare the upcoming lander missions.   Are known to be?  To do more studies?  Are all of those External Links really needed?  (Reference WP:NOT and WP:EL) Sandy 03:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)