Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mars/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC) [1].

Mars

Notified: RJHall, Drbogdan, Huntster, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Solar System, talk page notification 2020-12-18

I am nominating this featured article for review because as noted by Sandy Georgia on the talk page a year ago, the article has major issues including lack of citations (18 cn tags), bloating, some use of questionable sources and MOS issues, such as too-short paragraphs and MOS:LEAD. In addition there are some issues of balance that look questionable to me, for example the section on Martian canals is longer than that on exploration of Mars. (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some citation needed tags, and I will plan to fix more of them. Blue Jay (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see work is progressing. The article is jammed up with too many images, poor layout, and MOS:SANDWICH, and I wonder about WP:CITATION OVERKILL. Are all of those statements with three and four citations controversial and do they really need so many sources? Looking at the TOC, it appears that the article could be better organized. There is a section heading to house one map. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all citation needed tags. Blue Jay (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The citation needed tags have been fixed, which is a great start. The article still has issues with section imbalance, updating, overcite that are flagged with cleanup tags. The issues raised by Sandy above (eg image overkill) are also still present. (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the interactive Mars Map section, since the Topographic map seen in that section is also seen in a previous section. I will start with trimming and reducing the number of images.

This article has pretty serious issues throughout and will need sustained attention to bring it to standard. Here’s an example:

The seasonal frosting of areas near the southern ice cap results in the formation of transparent 1-metre-thick slabs of dry ice above the ground. With the arrival of spring, sunlight warms the subsurface and pressure from subliming CO2 builds up under a slab, elevating and ultimately rupturing it. This leads to geyser-like eruptions of CO2 gas mixed with dark basaltic sand or dust. This process is rapid, observed happening in the space of a few days, weeks or months, a rate of change rather unusual in geology – especially for Mars. The gas rushing underneath a slab to the site of a geyser carves a spiderweb-like pattern of radial channels under the ice, the process being the inverted equivalent of an erosion network formed by water draining through a single plughole.[133][134][135][136]
That passage is cited to four 15-year-old sources— probably dating to when the article was featured. If this info about gas and geysers has borne out over time, it should be possible to upgrade the citation to one current source. This problem is throughout the article, and a top-to-bottom rewrite may be needed to save this star.
Sources will need serious checking, too, eg: Olympus Mons". mountainprofessor.com. ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source: "the dark streaks— called recurring slope lineae (RSL)—which appear seasonably are caused by briny water flowing for a few days annually"
Article: "that dark streaks called recurring slope lineae (RSL), which appear seasonably, are caused by briny water flowing for a few days annually"

Given that the source is The Week (Indian magazine), unless we can establish backwards copying, this is definitely a copyvio. So this one needs looked at very carefully. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion occurred in these two edits, so yes it's a copyvio, but this looks like a one-off incident. Hog Farm Talk 04:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, but now we have to check the rest of that editor’s edits and do the revdels. You’re the admin :) Or should I ping in Diannaa? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, they only have 102 edits, of which some only consist of blatant MOS:OVERLINK. Will look into that soon - if I find enough issues, I might see about getting a mini CCI started. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will ping Moneytrees for advising on the RD1 here - I've been told that revision deletion is not always best for small violations that affect large swaths of page history, and in this case we have a single sentence and would have to delete over 360 revisions. Hog Farm Talk 14:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm I wouldn't revdel that, since as you said it's a small violation and would affect too much of the page history. Moneytrees🎄Talk/CCI guide 05:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Exploration section also include all the proposals for future Mars missions or an overview of all of them? Blue Jay (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blue Jay I would support merging the "Spacecraft visitation" and "Astronomy on Mars" sections under the "Exploration" top-level heading. This can cover future plans, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 03:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I will try merging once enough support is made for that decision. Blue Jay (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The entire TOC concerns me per WP:WIAFA 2b, but I am unable to find any WikiProject Astronomy guideline about how to structure a planet article. When you are finished with the rest of the cleanup, The great Jay, I hope that a better rationalization of the overall structure can be considered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should the last paragraph for the martian canals be on the habitability and life section? It doesn’t really mention any observations of canali. Blue Jay (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: - Update: I've done some work on the sources, replacing dead sources and old sources with new ones, and replaced questionable looking sources with more reliable ones. I'll try my best to address the source problems. Blue Jay (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work! The excessive amount of images, and the convoluted Table of Contents (WP:WIAFA 2b) are also a concern; the article could probably benefit from a better structure. I haven’t looked at your new sourcing yet, but did see:
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Blast" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Greek Names of the Planets" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "theoi" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "phobos.html" is not used in the content (see the help page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten the four cite errors corrected. Hog Farm Talk 02:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the mentions of Isidis Planitia and Argyre Planitia? These are major impact features and amonngst the largest in the Solar System. Elysium Mons also probably also deserves a mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a mention of Isidis Planitia and Argyre Planitia in the impact topography section.Blue Jay (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current issues:
    • The Future section still cites sources from 5 years ago or more. It should only include up to date information.
    • The article, especially exploration section, suffers from WP:PROSELINE issues. Not all the mentioned incidents are necessarily WP:DUE in this article.
    • The lead needs to be reduced to four paragraphs per MOS:LEAD (t · c) buidhe 00:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done some work on the exploration and future section, though I'm having a hard time finding any recent sources about Obama's plan to send people to Mars in the 2030's. Blue Jay (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have restored the fifth paragraph to the lead. A careful read of WP:LEAD will show that this trend (seen at FAC) of reducing leads is not supported by WP:LEAD, and there are many more characteristics of a well-written lead than the forced restriction to four paragraphs. I am not saying this lead is well written or complies with lead, but a five-para lead for an article this size is not what ails the lead. Please focus on the substance of what LEAD says, and if doing that requires five paragraphs, please use them! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are there any other sections that need updated information other than the future subsection of Exploration? Blue Jay (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are WP:proseline issues in Exploration section. I wonder if it is necessary to mention absolutely every exploratory vehicle intended to go to Mars? Or just mention the most important ones while explaining why they're important? (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should just mention the important ones, as I think some could be put in the Exploration on Mars article. Blue Jay (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Been wondering, should the volcanoes, tectonic sites, and holes sub-subsections be merged as a single subsection? They're all physical features of Mars, after all. Blue Jay (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd oppose this because then the higher-level section might be too long. (t · c) buidhe 09:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks in much better shape now. Do you feel satisfied with it Blue Jay? I wonder if it would be possible to ask someone who knows more about planets than I do to look it over. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a lot of experience on this kind of thing, so I'd reccommend asking someone else who has an input on this subject. Blue Jay (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      SandyGeorgia do you know anyone on wiki who knows something about planets and is willing to look it over? (t · c) buidhe 11:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, no :( The planet articles were almost all featured last decade, and the WikiProject was strong, but as far as I know, all of the editors responsible for that body of work have moved on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter and Femke might knows. 2001:4455:364:A800:305D:D13C:2D4A:3283 (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2
Maybe you can ping them for their input? Blue Jay (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Femke says she is suffering from long covid symptoms but I've left a query for XOR'easter in case they are willing and able to offer assistance. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to do more than a spot-check right now (I've a big rewrite project I need to make serious progress on this weekend), but I gave it a read and also left a reminder at the Astronomy WikiProject. I noticed that the web citations aren't consistently formatted; some use {{cite web}} and some don't. Is that a major deal by FA standards? XOR'easter (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your response, XOR'easter. The citations are an issue, but one that's straightforward to fix. Ideally, before I or someone else puts a lot of effort into citation cleanup, I'd rather know if there are any major content issues. (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proseline issue for the exploration section is the only one to deal with other than the citations, but I'm not sure. Blue Jay (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remain concerned about the article organization and rambling Table of Contents: the Table of Contents when the article passed FAC may help. The Viewing section as one example, seems very chopped up and may be consolidated to one section, to help flatten the TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Table of Contents appears to be fixed. Blue Jay (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To handle the proseline issue, I'd zap everything in the "Exploration" section after the paragraph that begins As of 2021, Mars is host to fourteen functioning spacecraft. There's just too much "a press release happened, so we added it here" to sort out. XOR'easter (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Citation standardization may be the next priority. XOR'easter (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked a few refs and they all had failed verification issues, now flagged in the article :( (t · c) buidhe 15:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three out of four "failed verification" tags resolved now, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I took care of the fourth. XOR'easter (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still have an WP:EL farm that needs to be cleaned up/trimmed to the most relevant links. (t · c) buidhe 15:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zapped a few. I'm almost inclined to nuke the whole section from orbit and ask that items only be reincluded if an affirmative case can be made for them. XOR'easter (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the planet articles, the images seem to get out of control. Why are they all necessary? It begins to look like a picture book; can an evaluation be made as to why so many images must be crammed in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the citation style? As one example, sometimes the publisher is NASA, other times Nasa.gov.
  • What makes space.com a high-quality reliable source?
  • The German Aerospace Center (DLR) citation goes nowhere.
    It is apparent that a thorough citation check and cleanup is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second and third sentences of the lead, referred, refers, repetitive; it looks like the second half of the second sentence could be better made part of the third sentence,, with recast wording.
  • The days and seasons are comparable to those of Earth, because the rotation period as well as the tilt of the rotational axis relative to the ecliptic plane are similar. Mars is the site of Olympus Mons, the largest volcano and highest known mountain on any planet in the Solar System, and of Valles Marineris, one of the largest canyons in the Solar System. The smooth Borealis basin in the Northern Hemisphere covers 40% of the planet and may be a giant impact feature.[20] Mars has two moons, Phobos and Deimos, which are small and irregularly shaped. --> ?? -->
    Olympus Mons, the largest volcano and highest known mountain on any Solar System planet, and Valles Marineris, one of the largest canyons in the Solar System, are on Mars. The smooth Borealis basin in the Northern Hemisphere covers 40% of the planet and may be a giant impact feature.[20] Mars has two small and irregularly shaped moons, Phobos and Deimos. The days and seasons on Mars are comparable to those of Earth as the planets have a similar rotation period and tilt of the rotational axis relative to the ecliptic plane.
  • The latest spacecraft to successfully land on Mars are CNSA's Tianwen-1 lander and Zhurong rover, landed on 14 May 2021. Define CNSA acronym ... land, lander, landed ... find a way to vary the wording, of just truncate --> ?? --> CNSA's Tianwen-1 lander and Zhurong rover landed on Mars on 14 May 2021.
  • The Zhurong rover was successfully deployed on 22 May 2021, which makes China the second country to successfully deploy a rover on Mars, after the United States.[22] ... successfully deployed, successfully deployed, repetitive. --? --> With Zhurong on 22 May 2021, China became the second country to successfully depoly a rover on Mars. ??
    OK, stopping there, my suggestions are not likely the best; a copyeditor is needed, and thorough prose review is probablhhy in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deadlink removed, some prose edits made. I want to let that sit for a bit and see if anyone is upset with the modifications I made to the lede. More thoughts about/work with the sourcing will hopefully follow when I can eke out the time. XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see XOR'easter cleaning up messes right and left. The citations are utterly out of control; have a look at one section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's modern science for you; collaborations get big. Just be happy we don't have to cite the discovery of the Higgs boson, where the coauthor list clocked in at a cool 24 pages and 5,154 names. I'm not so much a fan of removing the information completely, though; I'd rather just limit the display with display-authors=3 or so. XOR'easter (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only did one so you could revert me if needed, but I don't know how anyone can edit around all that ... it's impossible to find the text ... but up to you, revert if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox ... astronomy articles seem to attract too many images. Choices need to be made: with long infoboxes that take up three sections of the article, there's no room to also have a gazillion images that are bunched at the top or causing MOS:SANDWICH. My suggestion would be to lose half of the infobox and half of the images: split the difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to look up numerical information quickly is an important use case for astronomy pages. I'd rather lose pictures and keep the infobox; pretty pictures of space things are easy to come by. I'd maybe remove the "Artist's impression of how Mars may have looked four billion years ago", the image that "prompted speculation that some shapes were worm-like fossils" (since they weren't), "Orbits of Phobos and Deimos" (doesn't seem to add much), and the portrait of Galileo (not much reason to single him out among all the people mentioned in that section). XOR'easter (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove away :) I don't want to get in your way ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the citations, starting with the ones that looked the most dubious (defunct random websites from the mid-2000s and such). I've been trying to standardize them as I go along. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed everything I could find. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So where does this article stand now? Are there any other major concerns about this article? Blue Jay (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The great Jay: Are the editors fixing up this article ready for reviews? If so, indicate below and some reviewers will look at the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is ready for review, in case there are some things that haven't been fixed yet. Blue Jay (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox length is pretty extreme; consider that mobile viewers have to scroll through the entire thing before reading all of the lead. I think it would be improved by reducing the amount of information you're trying to convey in that format, to be more concise and accessible. But I'm not going to support delisting on that basis. I will oppose keeping until all the info there is sourced. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some way to have the infobox be collapsed in mobile view? (If there isn't, shouldn't there be? That limitation must affect a stupendous number of articles.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so. Templates on mobile are often pretty broken - they either mess up the layout or more often don't appear at all. Hog Farm Talk 01:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a drag.
I've started filling in references for the infobox and checking which of the values are covered by the references already present. I've also posted an inquiry on the article's Talk page and at WikiProject Astronomy for additional eyes. XOR'easter (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to a source for each calculation on the infobox? Blue Jay (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we need at least one for each section of it (a set of related numbers can all be drawn from a common source). If there's a number which isn't explicitly given in any source but has to be calculated, then including it is probably WP:UNDUE. We don't need to give numbers that nobody has cared about. I had a brief related discussion here. XOR'easter (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. Blue Jay (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an observation, but I've noticed that the Mars Fact Sheet source says that the Longitude of Ascending node is around 49.57854 degrees, while the actual article itself says that its 49.558 degrees. Blue Jay (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably another example of the same issue. I'd just take everything from the Mars Fact Sheet for consistency. It's possible that we picked up some wonky numbers along the way from somebody trying to compute the values for themselves. XOR'easter (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that the article says that the argument of perihelion is 286.502 degrees, but the closest source I could find (https://www.princeton.edu/~willman/planetary_systems/Sol/Mars/), rounds off that number to 286.5 degrees. Blue Jay (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to the rounded-off value of 286.5 degrees, which is consistent with Allen (2000) and the Mars Fact Sheet (336.04084 - 49.57854). XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else left to do? Blue Jay (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes "The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must" a high quality RS?
IMO the lead right now doesn't do a great job summarizing the body. It goes from names to "terrestrial planet", mountains on Mars to moons. Should be rewritten in a more coherent order and reflecting the major body sections. (t · c) buidhe 09:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence about Mars's crust and core in the lead. Blue Jay (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some rearrangements and moved some excess detail into the body text. I don't dislike the opening paragraph now; explaining the origin of the name early on seems good to me, but perhaps it could be moved to the part of the lede that summarizes the visual appearance and culture stuff. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should the future missions to Mars receive a mention in the lead? Blue Jay (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the body text of the article says enough about them to make that necessary, but it's not a bad idea either. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added mentions of the Rosalind Mars Rover Mission and the Mars sample-return mission in the lead. Blue Jay (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a check and the only thing in the infobox that remains unsourced is the equatorial rotation velocity of Mars. Blue Jay (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked it to something that I think is justifiable. XOR'easter (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that astronomycafe.net appears to just be one of those faqs, so maybe we could replace it with another source? Blue Jay (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, XOR has retired now. BloatedBun (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, well thats a shame. Blue Jay (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should the lead also mention the history of how Mars was observed? Blue Jay (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it already is? (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we also need sources for all the temperature values for the infobox? Blue Jay (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should all have a verifiable source. (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to find a source for the temperature of Mars in kelvin, closest one I could find is the Mars Fact sheet but the minimum and maximum temperature of Mars in Kelvin still remains unsourced. Should we just remove the kelvin section from the infobox altogether? Blue Jay (talk)

So is there anything else left that we have to do? Blue Jay (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, buidhe? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep listed It took me a while, but I managed to find the time to read through this again, and I think we've wrung it into a state of respectability. The concerns raised in this discussion appear to have been met. XOR'easter (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, keep now I think (t · c) buidhe 01:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say I'm at keep then if XOReaster is comfortable with it. Hog Farm Talk 13:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Mars/archive1&oldid=1095028516"