Wikipedia:Peer review/Taurus-Littrow (lunar valley)/archive1

Taurus-Littrow (lunar valley)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I am of the belief that this article may meet the criteria for B-class. I would like a second opinion verifying this.

Thanks, Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: In my view this article as it stands is probably borderline for a B. Assuming you want to lift the article's quality beyond that, here are some suggestions for you to consider:-
 * Choice of title
 * The name "Taurus Littrow" means nothing to the great majority of people - it could refer to anything. If they knew the article was about a lunar valley they would much more likely be drawn to it. Have you considered adding the words (lunar valley) to the title?
 * ✅ - Added "(lunar valley)" to the end of title.


 * Prose
 * There is rather too much reliance on links to explain names or terms which will be unfamiliar to the general reader, e.g. "Tycho", "regolith", "ejecta" etc. Readers shouldn't have to keep leaving the article to follow links in order to maintain their understanding. Some technical terms are unavoidable, and I'm not suggesting that every one be explained, but a little more clarity would be helpful.
 * Some of the prose needs polishing. The following are samples and should not be taken as a complete list of required prose fixes:-
 * The first sentence is under-punctuated and has too many clauses, yet neglects to give a date for the Apollo 17 mission, information which is pretty vital for the sense of the sentence.
 * The last sentence in the lead reads: "The valley was named by the crew of Apollo 17, and was subsequently adopted by the IAU in 1973." That reads as though the valley was adopted by the IAU. Needs rephrasing. IAU should be spelt out.
 * Overall the lead is very brief, and needs to be expanded so that it is a more complete summary of the article.
 * The first sentemce of the "Formation and geography" section reads: "The Taurus-Littrow valley is geologically diverse in that during its formation, lavas welled upward from the Moon's interior." It will not be obvious to the general reader why lavas welling upwards from the moon's interior leads to geological diversity. The next sentence begins "As a result of this..." It's not clear what "this" is referring to. Also in this paragraph you should mention that Cernan and Schmitt were members of the Apollo 17 mission.
 * Later in the article, in the Composition section, we have: "There are several geologic deposits on the valley floor originating from several different events in the geologic timeline of the Moon. One of these, the light mantle,..." Again, what does "these" refer to? I imagine it means the geological deposits, but as written it seems to be referring to the "several different events".
 * Clunky: "As Apollo 17 was the final lunar mission of the Apollo program, several scientific objectives were identified and several sites previously considered were given consideration again."
 * Images
 * I liked the photographs very much. However, the geological map, in the absence of any description or key, is not useful.
 * ✅ Color key added.
 * Citations
 * The article is rather lightly cited. The first two paragraphs of the Formation and geography section have no citations at all, and the same is true for the main paragraph in the Landing site selection section.
 * ✅ - Citations clarified.
 * Dablink
 * Your link on Copernicus goes to a disambiguation page.
 * I liked the photographs very much. However, the geological map, in the absence of any description or key, is not useful.
 * ✅ Color key added.
 * Citations
 * The article is rather lightly cited. The first two paragraphs of the Formation and geography section have no citations at all, and the same is true for the main paragraph in the Landing site selection section.
 * ✅ - Citations clarified.
 * Dablink
 * Your link on Copernicus goes to a disambiguation page.

It is for you to decide how far you want to take this article. I believe that attention to these points could certainly bring it within range of Good Article. Please contact my tlpage if you wish to raise any questions on this review, as I am not able to watch peer reviews at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)