Talk:Mars/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Living On Mars

Living on the planet mars is not possible even though it is not very close to the sun. This is not possible as its water is too salty and too acidic for humans or animals and plants to survive on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.240.138 (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


There are many other reasons as well: 1)Water cannot not exist in a liquid state on Mars 2)There is virtually no ozone layer-the UV would kill you 3)There is no magnetic field to protect from Cosmic Rays —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumwood (talkcontribs) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

mass of mars

circumference is circa 0.5 earth

mass is only 0.155 earths?

how does that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.67.148 (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mars has a Radius (R) of 3,396.2km (3.39/6.37=0.53 that of Earth)
Volume of a sphere: (4/3)*pi*(R^3) = 1.6E+11 (so 1.6/10.8=0.15 that of Earth)
Given that Mars has a density of only 3.9g/cm^3 and Earth has a density of 5.5g/cm^3, Mars has a mass of (1.6E+11)*3.9 = 6.4E+11 (or only 6.45/59.7=0.1 that of Earth) -- Kheider (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A Ecosystem Section Should be Added

I think this plant especially; and all other planets should have ecosystem sub-headings on the main page. Past, present, future or theoretical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdailey1 (talkcontribs) 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What would you put in there? As of yet, we do not know of any ecosystems outside Earth. It would be pointless to add a section for something we do not know exists yet. I suggest we put it in when they do find something ecological there. - Redmess (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Martian Fossils?

When i looked up mars life i read an article that said and asteriod from mars came to earth. The scientists said that they saw strange worm like structures and crab like formations on it. I just thought it was cool what do you think?

See Life on Mars. IMO, until there's good evidence, it's safest to assume these are mineral formations. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mars like Earth?!

"In addition to its geographical features, Mars’ rotational period and seasonal cycles are likewise similar to those of Earth."

This should be corrected! Mars' seasonal cycles are not at all like the Earth. Its year is 2 Earth years long, thus its seasons last twice as long. In addition, its orbit is much more elliptical than the Earths. Unlike the situation for the Earth, Mars' distance from the Sun does influence its seasons. This causes much more severe seasonal temperature changes than on the Earth. 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Although they last twice as long as Earth's they are otherwise similar in their lengths respective to one another and intensity, as Mars' axial tilt is similar. Also, Mars' rotational period is only about forty minutes longer than Earth's day. --Patteroast (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image doubts

The image comparing the sizes of the Earth, Mars, Venus, and Mercury seems inconsistent with the radius. It is said that the radius of Mars is approximately half that of Earth, yet in the image, they seem to be of similar size. Is there something I am missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candlefrontin17 (talkcontribs) 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you are confusing Venus for Mars, Mars is far right in the image sbandrews (t) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

sbandrews is right, the order of planets in the image is Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars. Mars looks alot less red in this photo than you may be expecting. Ph0t0phobic (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix Mars lander

Phoenix Mars lander should be moved from future missions to current missions. 24.83.103.120 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

introduction

I'm altering the last sentence of the third paragraph of the intro where it's written that mars is the most likely planet to harbour liquid water. Scientists are very certain that the temperature is too cold for liquid water today. I'm changing it to "most likely to have once harboured liquid water." 209.148.211.142 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)rando209.148.211.142 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See Once Upon a Water Planet. Mars may still have occasional pockets of water today. Mars was wet with rivers and lakes. Every few centuries weather conditions might become clement enough for that water to "come and go" on the surface. -- Kheider (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Climate

There is an error in the climate section. It says in the climate section that the summer in the south pole can reach a temperature of 30 C. While this may be true, the conversion to F that is there is not correct. 30 C = 86 F, not 58 F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorryseed (talkcontribs) 16:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not say that temperatures reach 30 Celsius at the South Pole! It just says it gets 30 degrees Celsius warmer in the southern hemisphere summer than it does in the northern hemisphere summer. The conversion from Celsius to Fahrenheit is also wrong. A change of thirty degrees Celsius is equivalent to a change of 54 degrees of Fahrenheit not 86 degrees of Fahrenheit. You do not need to add the 32; you are not adjusting for the Fahrenheit Celsius scale constant differences, in this case. Otherwise, a zero degree change in Celsius would be the equivalant to 32-degrees of change in Fahrenheit. No, a zero degree change in Celsius is the same as a zero degree change in Fahrenheit. I've changed the 86 to 54 but possibly the original 58 F was the real difference in summer temperatures, given by NASA perhaps, and the 30 Celsius conversion was just a nicely rounded down whole figure from that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.122.175 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking in Mercury, temperature is given in the introduction in K, shouldn't t be done equal in all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.96.27.36 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ice

Someone should add that Ice was discovered on Mars today. . Full story here: http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/06_19_pr.php Karfair (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for the northern basin

The dichotomy of Martian topography is striking: northern plains flattened by lava flows contrast with the southern highlands, pitted and cratered by ancient impacts.

I've seen in the news an article that could explain this. Since I thought you'd be interested, I posted it here. Bye, Shinobu (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pheonix Lander: Mars soil can support life

Can someone familiar with the article add this latest find? The lander has found that Martian soil is hospitable for growing plants. Also, the lander has purportedly found proof that liquid water once existed there. This is big news here. Okiefromokla complaints 23:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That news will also get suppressed. See Richard C. Hoagland's website] about other news items that gets suppressed. "Skeptics" don't want it here. See the mess that UFO Watchdog] caused on the Philip Klass page when matter on there has been found criticising him was found, but was willfully censored out of Wikipedia as being "inappropriate(See History section on the Philip Klass article)", worse. Seen it myself. It is there. 65.163.117.135 (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The Klass matter is on "Hall of Shame 1, 7th on that list. Seen it there.65.163.117.135 (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The matter about suppression of criticism of Philip Klass is on the History section of the article, one about a 3rd opinion(Who gave it?!), dates are 9-8-06, 1-1-08, 3-6-08, 6-11-08. 65.163.117.135 (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
See also the CSICOP article's History Section as well. 65.163.117.135 (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Found the ref. about a "inappropriate link" in the CSICOP article's History section. It is dated Jan, 7, 2008. That is why the news article you had found will be not placed here or some "skeptic" will remove it. 65.163.117.135 (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Said link is the UFO Watchdog link criticising both Philip Klass and CSICOP, all in its "Hall of Shame 1, 7th on that listing. No one here wants to really examine that, just as they will not examine what you placed here. To others on here, I'm not acting like a ass, only being truthfull and pointed the way to evidence.65.163.117.135 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Martian Atmospheric Pressure

The page has it for Mars at 1kPa versus 100kPa for earth. Now we're all familiar with the Mars Polar lander, which used a parachute [1] . So, can somone explain to me how in the world are they able to slow down the craft for landing by using a parachute given that there is practically no air? Either the atmospheric pressure in this section is wrong or the polar lander is somewhere in Antartica.

Also the gravity is lower on Mars than it is on Earth (by a factor of ~10). So a parachute would slow you down about 1/10 as well as on Earth. So just use a parachute ten times as big as those used on Earth for the same weight, and there will be no problem.--129.70.6.216 (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Water

Thursday, July 31, 2008, NASA said they have definitive proof of water on Mars, and should this be included in this article? The following link goes to the Yahoo article: LINK Viet|Pham (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds important to me, I'd say include it. --ChetvornoTALKCONTRIB 08:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I added it under "Historical Observations", and nominated it for ITN.--Bedford Pray 08:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Writing Critique

An Encyclopedic article should not explore past theories about a subject first. It should start with what is currently known and then later in the piece provide background on past theories.

67.40.136.109 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Northern Hemisphere Impact Crater and Updating Other Articles

The second post below mentioned this, but their link is dead now. I've added two citations to news stories reporting on the June 2008 Nature journal, which published three articles where researchers independently ran simulations to lend credence to the theory that Mars was struck by a giant object four billion years ago that accounts for the geologically distinct features of the northern hemisphere. This would make it by and large the largest impact crater in the solar system, which deserves mentioning. If anyone thinks this is relevant, there are a few articles which could use this information, such as the south pole-aitken basin, the hellas basin, geography of mars, surface features of mars, etc. The citations are included below.

<ref name=northcratersn>{{cite web
  |date=July 19, 2008
  |title=Impact May Have Transformed Mars
  |publisher=ScienceNews.org
  |author=Ashley Yeager
  |url=http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33622/title/Impact_may_have_transformed_Mars_
  |accessdate=2008-08-12}}</ref>

<ref name=northcraterguard>{{cite web
  |date=June 26, 2008
  |title=Cataclysmic impact created north-south divide on Mars
  |publisher=Science @ guardian.co.uk
  |author=Ian Sample
  |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/26/mars.asteroid?gusrc=rss&feed=science
  |accessdate=2008-08-12}}</ref>

KHAAAAAAAAAAN (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Astronomy on Mars

The section claims that Earth and Moon are easily visible from Mars (and seems to imply they are both brighter than Phobos). Does anyone have a reference for this? I calculated that even the full Moon would have an apparent magnitude of about 2 when Mars is opposite the Earth as seen from the Sun (at other times a full Moon would not be visible from Mars), which I wouldn't consider "easily visible". The new moon (when Mars is closest to Earth on its orbit) would be invisible to the human eye with an apparent magnitude of 7.5 --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a reference for this: [2] which claims that Earth would have magnitude -3 and the Moon 0.9 as viewed from Mars. Since both would obviously be invisible during conjunctions, I presume these numbers refer to the times when the Earth and the Moon would be brightest as seen from Mars. Seeing the Earth and the Moon as separate objects is a different problem: I think that the separation would be about 8 minutes of arc or less when the Earth is 100 million miles from Mars, greater when the Earth is closer. Vegasprof (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Life

The following, according to every news source on the salt-like (it might even be a kind of salt) substance on the martian surface, is simply NOT true: "Recent evidence has suggested that any water on the Martian surface would have been too salty and acidic to support life.[68]" From what I've read, it doesn't seem to mean a thing one way or the other.

Motion to delete. Anyone with me? ----J.Dayton (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded Nbound (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete or qualify - The cited article only says Earth microbes could not have survived in it. --ChetvornoTALK 05:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, or provide a counter citation. The claim is unsupportable, since it appears that life can adapt to any natuarally occuring body of water. Vegasprof (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "aurora" :
    • {{cite web | last=Bertaux et al. | first = Jean-Loup | url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/abs/nature03603.html | title=Discovery of an aurora on Mars | work=Nature Magazine | date=June 9, 2005 | accessdate=2006-06-13}}
    • empty
  • "nasa" :
    • {{cite web | title = Mars: Facts & Figures | publisher = NASA | url = http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Mars&Display=Facts&System=Metric | accessdate = 2007-03-06 }}
    • {{cite web | last = Phillips | first = Dr. Tony | title = Mars is Melting, Science at NASA | url = http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm | accessdate = 2007-02-26 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rogue asteroids

I have a question Pluto was declared a dwarf planet since it didn't clear the neighborhood but Mars has rogue asteroids so that means Mars haven't yet cleared the neighborhood so does that mean Mars isn't a planet but a mini planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.234.94 (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pluto did not clear (dominant) its region of other "similar sized objects". The asteroids near Mars (or the Earth) are not of a similar size to either planet. There are many objects in Pluto's region that are roughly half of Pluto's size. Had astronomers known Pluto was so small back when it was discovered it may never have been classified as a planet. Even as recently as the 1970's it was commonly believed that Pluto was 5700km in diameter and nearly as massive as the Earth. Rogue asteroids are rogues because they being pushed around by the dominant objects. -- Kheider (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.83.117 (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mars is very cold

This source said the low is minus 130 C, and the warmest is 0 degs. C. I wonder which source is right. The average surface temp is only 218 K, puts it to like -55 C.--SCFReeways 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

On a similar topic, the average temperature is wrong and has been created by averaging the max and min temperatures. It should be 195K (look at Earth for an example of why the average temperature is not the average of max and min) Cupboard1 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hydrology

The second paragraph of the hydrology section reads like a debate rather than an encyclopedic overview. Someone needs to rewrite it, so it doesn't sound so much like someone trying to win an argument. Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How Do We Suggest Awards for Wikipedia Articles?

How Do We Suggest Awards for Wikipedia Articles? This is one of the best Wikipedia articles I have ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.228.154 (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it. It is very good. See the top of this page; it has already reached featured article status. I don't think there is anyathing higher. Saros136 (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

this gives lots of info!!! I give it a 10 out of 10!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.213.182 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Marsology not Geology

Several times the term 'geology is used here in reference to the physical composition of Mars. The correct term is Marsology. Geology is the term for Earths physical composition - Geo means Earth. Johnnyjj (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)johnnyjjJohnnyjj (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh RllY???

When was the last time you have updated your language skills in ancient Greek and/or Latin (mine was before Christmas, i know both languages, though im not using them on my occupation). First of all, a compound related to Latin Mars would be formed from the root and not the nominative, therefore Marto- (Mars, Martis....), so Martology instead of Marsology. Then you might want to use the Greek term, because, Geology is also built on Greek terms (Ge, Geo only in Compounds), and then it would be Areology (from Ares, Areos....who was the Greek god of war). And last of all, its up to the scientific community on how they define Geology, there are many scientific terms out there, that dont match exactly what they actually mean (e.g. Hysteria). So somebody better find guidelines --89.15.202.72 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Terms do evolve with usage. See Geology#Planetary_Geology. -- Kheider (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
How about "Physical characteristics" or something. What are we supposed to do for each planet --Venusology, Uranusology (proctology)??

Orbital eccentricity of Mars

The correct value is 0.09341233 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.133.153 (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Length of Mars

I am doing a write up about Mars and i wondered what length Mars is. Does anyone know the width and the length? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.81.199 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's a ball.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike0964`s Way of Describing MARS

My way of describing Mars is it is so awsome and cool and would literly KILL you the second you took a breath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike0964 (talkcontribs) 02:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

and what was the point of that, this is a discussion page about what should be put into the article not a page for saying how you would describe something Mr Deathbat (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of Mars

I don't want to start messing with an FA, and I'm sure others of you have better knowledge & refs than me, but shouldn't we cover ideas on the evolution of the planet in a dedicated section?

  • A massive (captured?) satellite generates a magnetic field through tidal melt, protecting the atmosphere and allowing liquid water on the surface
  • A massive impact, possibly of that satellite, removes the crust of one hemisphere and strips the atmosphere; without tidal heating to churn the interior, the mag field fades, allowing the Solar wind to prevent the atmosphere from reforming
  • Hemispheric imbalance and subsequent massive volcanoes cause planet to tip
  • Lack of stabilizing satellite allows ≈5My wobble, striations in polar cap, and periodically enough warmth at poles for at least some liquid water

kwami (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Methane Plumes as Evidence for life on Mars

I think that the single sentence "Also, small quantities of methane and formaldehyde recently detected by Mars orbiters are both claimed to be hints for life, as these chemical compounds would quickly break down in the Martian atmosphere.[81][82] It is possible that these compounds may be replenished by volcanic or geological means such as serpentinization." is an insufficient discussion for the methane plume evidence that has recently been reported on in Science magazine (article by Michael Mumma, Jan. 15, 2009, I can't get the exact reference because it's premium content and I don't have a subscription).

Something ought to be added to replace the above quoted sentence, such as: "As reported by Michael Mumma in Science, January 15, 2009, Nasa data taken by the Mars orbiters in 2003 indicate that there are active regions beneath the surface that expelled methane in 2003. Since 2006, the methane has broken down and is no longer observed. Since methane is easily oxidized by the chemical environment on Mars there must be some active processes that produced it. But because of the lack of other volcanic gases such as sulfur dioxide, a volcanic source for the methane seems to be ruled out. Serpentinization is not ruled out, although it would have to be a process that produces exclusively methane and not other reduced compounds such as hydrogen sulfide. The possibility that ancient decomposing biomass or even extremophile microbial activity could be producing the methane is not ruled out, and is perhaps supported by the fact that the plumes seem to be emanating from areas of hydrological activity. Dr. Mumma has point out though that much more evidence is needed for the biological hypothesis to be plausible." I have seen no mention of formaldehyde in any of the articles I've read. Since I don't know the exact reference but definitely, the Science article by Michael Mumma, Jan. 15, 2009 needs to be referenced, this a going to be a heavily cited article. I leave it to a more experienced Wikipedian to do the actual edit, thank you for your consideration. <<((:-:))>>0X0<<((:-:))>> (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead reference

The 16th (as of Febraury 22, 2009) reference is a dead link to a page entitled "Mars avalanche caught on camera". I found this other website, http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/04/mars-avalanche.html, but I don't know how to fill in the parameters of the currently used template: {{web cite}}, I think.

Can anyone point do it, please?

~ Jotomicron 00:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

why not editable

wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that some people can edit on non important pages and their edits will be often overturned if it somehow offends the special admin class

What did you try to do? Saros136 (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately some articles get vandalized frequently by people that have nothing better to do with their lives. I guess they need the attention. Surprisingly these same people could get more attention by trying to improve the smaller sub-articles. As they become better at using wikipedia they could move up to making more radical edits to featured articles, such as Mars. The best advice that I can give is to make sure that when you make an edit to an article that you cite an external reputable reference that backs it up, ie: Statement<ref>http://www.source.com/page</ref> -- Kheider (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

mars

mars chocoolates are good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.239.29 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mars albedo

We can see that Mars has an albedo of 0.15 on this page.But on the Mars fact Sheet , it is 0.25. It is a possible error i think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.210.199.244 (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The visual geometric albedo is 0.15. The bond albedo is 0.25. We use geometric (visual) on wiki-pages. -- Kheider (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

is there life on planet mars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.103.250 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Colour adjusted Image

I've uploaded a colour adjusted image of the crater in the Geography section to the site, under the existing one. The adjusted one now more closely matches images from the surface taken on older missions, where real-colour cameras were taken instead of black and white ones which are piped through filters and then later reassembled. As well as the sky now matching the older images the ground colour now also matches that of more recent images of the surface taken from altitude that are present in the article already. I've kept the original which was created using the filter method on the article for comparison. It's slightly less "shocking" in a way than the red-filter ones, but I think it's still a VERY good image. Scottcabal (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How is the one you are wanting to replace created any different from nearly every image from the Martian surface? And was this mosaic you posted using calibrated visible light, color-filter images? Otherwise, I don't see why posting a false-color version of a mosaic we already have a true-color version is useful. --Volcanopele (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It isn't false colour thats the point - this is how it would look if you were on the surface thats why I added it. The existing image was created using the same method that they have been using in most recent images - they take 3 black and white photos through colour filters then reassemble them which adds a level of uncertainty... plus they released it to look impressive. This shows the correct colouring - based on earlier photos of the surface and sky from earlier missions, and also based on the colour of the surface from photos taken from orbit on more current missions. I added it to show the difference between how it would look if you were standing there, and how it looks through the filtered images. They use the filters as it helps provide more data for various studies into rock formations. I corrected this using filters on my PC to show true colour vs filtered colour. 86.156.253.72 (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok I forgot to log in there, but that was me. Scottcabal (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't add a level of uncertainty as long as each of the images used is properly calibrated, which the top mosaic was. The image below is a false color image as it shows a sky color that is not correct for Mars. as far as matching photos from orbit, most of those are false color images designed to enhance surface contrasts. --Volcanopele (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you Nasa, or have you been to Mars to know they were correct? Also.... why do people in other countries have to be awkward and spell colour wrong lol Scottcabal (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you NASA? ;-) Trust that they did it right - your subjective edit has no scientific basis. (I again removed the image from the Victoria crater article, for precisely this reason. Please do not be naive and comment on spelling - American spelling is the norm in NASA related articles. See WP:ENGVAR ) Greetings, --Janke | Talk 19:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ready for FAR?

We've received notice that this article requires cleanup, or it may end up at WP:FAR. Is anybody interested in addressing this concern before the FAR clock is started?

Several sections in this article don't appear to meet the FA criteria. In particular:

  • Evolution lacks any references and includes vagueness.
  • The third paragraph of Life is weak on citations.
  • The first paragraph of Historical observations needs citations.
  • The In fiction section includes multiple PoV statements and it needs more citations.

There are also several citation needed tags that haven't been addressed, and I see multiple other paragraphs where a citation would be apropos. Any help would be appreciated—RJH (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The evolution section is my doing. I was going by memory from TV interviews of some of the rover scientists, so it's unref'd and all a bit vague. I proposed it on Talk and no-one more knowledgeable than me picked up on it, but I thought that we should definitely cover it. Hopefully the threat of FAR will motivate someone to expand on it? I'm quite curious as to how much we know now about the evolution of this planet. kwami (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dark streaks

Neither image has proper references to NASA, the first links to a different photo with no streak, the other lacks refs completely. Needs to be fixed! --Janke | Talk 08:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)