This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I think this section gives undue weight to the possible plate tectonic origin of the Tharsis Montes. See my comments on Ascraeus Mons article. Plate tectonics as an explanation for the Tharsis Montes alignment is controversial and not the prevailing view. Also, two papers [Sleep, 1994 and Connerney et al., 2005] cited in the references present a different view of the plate tectonic context of the Tharsis Montes. Sleep suggests the montes are analogs to terrestrial island arc volcanoes associated with a subduction zone. Connerney at al. compares the Tharsis Montes to the movement of a "Tharsis plate" over a stationary hot spot, similar to the fomation of the Hawaiian island chain. These two models are not distinguished in the article.
I definitely think a discussion of possible plate tectonics on early Mars is important. The hypothesis is by no means fringe science. It's just that the topic is too detailed to present a balanced view in a short article on Pavonis Mars, or any of the other Tharsis Montes. Schaffman (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)