Wikipedia:Peer review/Geology of Venus/archive1

Geology of Venus
This article just went through a Spanish Translation of the Week, and it shouldn't take much to raise it to FAC status. I've been working on it quite a bit, and I would like to see that; however, it still needs to be shortened a bit (it's 2KB too long), a better introductory summary, and inline citations. On the good side, the material is stable, comprehensive and accurate; no edit wars are going on; and the images don't have any copyvio problems. General comments will be appreciated too. -- Titoxd 21:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 32KB of prose is the starting point where an article may be considered too long. This article does not have 32KB of prose, so is fine by that measure and the topic may in fact warrant coverage with a bit more prose without being too taxing on the reader. See Summary Style and Article size. I can't read it now, but I look forward to doing so a bit later and giving feedback (I am very excited that so much was written about the geology of our sister planet and would love to see this topic featured). --mav 17:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice work. The "Publications" section references three spanish-language books. Can these be replaced by English language equivalents? Thanks. &mdash; RJH 18:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Those were the original references that the Spanish article drew on when we translated it, but we went looking for additional (and newer, since it seemed that those books were a bit out of date) sources, and they're the English links on the references section. --Titoxd 22:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I do not think this article is ready for FAC yet. Some issues: In short, I do not think this article is tightly on topic if the topic is going to be about the geology of Venus. An easy fix to bring this article more on topic would be to rename it surface features of Venus. But answering the above questions would be even better. --mav 18:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like the first two sections would be more comfortably placed in an article about the exploration of Venus since very little is stated there about the planet's geology (even that is more geography than about geology). Merging what is there with what is at the ==Observations and explorations of Venus== in the Venus article would form a nice basis for such an article. Then a more compact summary can be in the Venus article.
 * The third section deals with topography findings from the explorations. Topography is a sub field of geography, not geology.
 * Section 5 has its title linked. That is bad per the MoS but at least this is the first section that can be interpreted to be about geology.
 * A general lack of inline citations.
 * Lead section needs refactoring. Too long as is and does not really summarize the whole article. This should be the *last* thing done though.
 * No mention of the formation of the planet (this is a biggie).
 * No mention of the leading theories that try to explain why the surface is so young and why the planet has a retrograde rotation (another biggie).
 * A section that compares the evolution of Earth to that of Venus would be very interesting. I am particularly interested in how the role of water and water vapor has impacted the respected planet's geology (hint; without water plate tectonics would not work on Earth).
 * Thanks for the suggestions, they were exactly the kind of general directions I was looking for. While it certainly is more than what I was expecting, it makes a good project for this week. I'll look forward to editing this article (and expanding the sub-articles I'll have to split) and I appreciate any help doing that. --Titoxd 05:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * good article, but the image of "Venus dome 3D view.jpg" has no copyright or source info; and flood basalts is a red link which should have atleast a stub explaining it. Uber nemo 05:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I found a copy of the image here, and I'll try to fix the copyright (I'm not a regular of the image namespace), I just have to learn how to do it. --Titoxd 06:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. --Titoxd 06:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the word "geology" used to describe other planets? I've seen the term "selenology" for the Moon, though I have no idea how prevalent that is. Is there another term? John Barleycorn 23:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of the images are much too dark on my monitor.--Bcrowell 01:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)