Having read through the article, this article seems to meet all the feature article criteria. Atomic1609 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If, when, or before all the Planet articles reach FA, should a survey/comparison be done to see how they appear side by side? Is there a general trend, or are the articles on the planets generally done in an individual way? There might not be anything wrong with tailoring each article especially for the planet in question. For a biography article that would be acceptable, but is it acceptable for a Planet article?-BillDeanCarter 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The current FA'd planet articles Mercury (planet), Venus and Jupiter are laid out in a comparable fashion. Mars appears to use a similar arrangement, with just a few differences in section titles. (I've been gently coaxing the Earth article toward a similar layout. :) But there's probably always going to be a few differences between those pages, due to the nature of the planets and their differing history. How close do you think they need to be? — RJH (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, but there's a featured topic on the Solar System here Solar System topic that addresses what I was getting at. As long as these Planet articles generally cover the same information in the same depth when possible it should be good. The infoboxes serve that purpose well. I just wanted to make sure it was something being considered.-BillDeanCarter 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects would probably have the most interest in this topic. Perhaps you could raise it as an issue on their talk page? They're usually fairly receptive to logical suggestions. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
BillDeanCarter, I've just been taking a look at the Moon article and I begin to see your point, its quite confusing to find my way around now I'm used to the structure of the Mars page - some kind of *gentle* standardisation would be a good thing. sbandrews 13:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
CommentI was skimming through and found two external jumps ("history of the observation of mars" and "These maps are now available online at Google Mars.") in the Historical observations of Mars section. Those should probably be converted to footnotes. External links section needs pruning.Gzkn 03:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
the two external jumps now fixed sbandrews 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
external links pruned sbandrews 20:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Object — The page has improved, but I still have some issues that prevent me from supporting it. Sorry.
Weak Support — Most of my issues have been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The lead section needs work, at least in the form of a reorganization. The second and fourth paragraphs switch their subject abruptly. What does "it was hoped ... that Mars had ample liquid water" mean in the lead section? Ample for what? The first two sentences of the fourth paragraph in the lead section seem more appropriate for the third paragraph. The topic of Mars' moons is less important than any of the information it precedes and I think it should be pushed down.
Intro substantially reworked, sbandrews 23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of redundancy between the second and third paragraphs in the "Geology" section and other parts of the article. (The "Magnetosphere" and "Possibility of liquid water" sections.) I'd like to see that information consolidated somehow.
Magnetosphere redundancy fixed. Water section more problematic, now split between geology and current missions - would like to see it all put into geology. sbandrews 10:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC) All water info now in geology section sbandrews 12:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Missing space: "...light red sand.Despite being closer..."Fixed.
There is no discussion of Mars' retrograde motion during opposition with the Earth; nor of the synodic period.
Added to the 'Viewing Mars' section sbandrews 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the "Life" section has no references. But it is speculative in nature; describing conditions we think are needed for life. So citations are needed, I believe.
Added good text on the subject, more refs are in the main LOM article - At some point the idea of the 'habitable zone' needs putting in a historical context, somewhat 'old-hat' sounding now imo.sbandrews 16:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Are there citations for the first paragraph of the "Future plans" section?
all three plans are wikilinked and have full referencing there - this is a long article, the reference section is already heavy... sbandrews 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe there's a reference quota: Supernova has 110, for example. I think the article should have as many as are needed. But there are an absolutely astonishing number of external links. Couldn't most of those be merged in as references? — RJH
Why is there a "Astronomical observations from Mars" section? Only the second paragraph in that section seems of much importance, and that could be covered in the Magnetosphere section.
demoted it to subsection of Exploration of Mars - needs pruning sbandrews 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but that has just moved the text around. I'm wondering why so much text is being spent on "Astronomy on Mars" than the more important "Past missions" section, for example? :-) Also the sentence about the occultation of Mars by Venus is probably more appropriate for the "Viewing Mars" section. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Cropped astronomy section and enhanced exploration section - balance restored? Can't bring myself to delete this section - what to do :) sbandrews 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The "In fiction" section has zero references. The "Moons" section has a fiction reference to the moons that I think belongs in the "In fiction" section.Moved punctuation before citation tags, per MoS.
references put in, moons moved and referencedsbandrews 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The references section needs work. I see one that is just a URL. Many don't have retrieval dates, and I suspect more could list their authors. The "Climate" section has a couple of external links that should be in citation format. Likewise for the linked text, "history of the observation of mars" and "Google Mars".
Climate section fixed - likewise linked text problem sbandrews 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Reference section tidied up - only reference 58 (Mars Factsheet) waiting for check or replacement. sbandrews 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - nearly there. I feel it does satisfy criteria apart from the prose. I made a couple of mundane corrections but it still has a clunky feel in places. I'd move the areology sentence from the lead as it is not essential to be there and the lead reads badly with loads of bits of info jammed into it. I do think it is nearly there however. Would you like me to go ahead and tweak a few grammatical/style bits or suggest them here? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you've time, I'd be delighted for the help - but suggestions are appreciated otherwise - and thanks for the encouragement :) kind regards sbandrews 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Note — Is there a reason why this article is not receiving more support, but is also not getting any objections? It seems odd. — RJH (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I have been through to copyedit a bit but having trouble; there are spots I feel the prose needs tweaking but can't put my finger on how/what to fix. I've had this trouble when working on my own FA candidates that sometimes things seem to go awry and it can be very hard to figure out how to proceed. I am just about ready to support but something looks a bit 'messy' cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah okay. Yes there are a few sections of prose that, while technically correct, struck me as not quite having good "flow". Usually it seems like some skilled editors seem to show up right about now to help with the polish. :-) The only other minor issues that come to mind are the early mention of the Tharsis bulge without further explanation; a sentence about "other classifications" that leaves the reader hanging a little, and the disconnect between the "The image to the right..." paragraph and it's illustration further up the page. — RJH (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
fixed the latter two problems sbandrews 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - there are some comments by marskell in the previous FACthat might help - my prose is poor :( but I'll give it a go... sbandrews 12:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC) that I have addressed, save for the 'geologically active' bit. If we note here any poor sections of the prose, (i.e. as per Casliber's first offer) it will help to push this FAC forward by combined attack :), kind regards sbandrews 14:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
ConditionalSupport: This article has greatly improved since the last featured article candidacy. The geography and geology sections have been improved. My only complaint is the third paragraph in the geology section, which still sounds like "Article by Press Release". This section should be incorporated into a "Mars Water" section, and how this result relates to the role of water on the present-day Martian surface, which given the current astrobiology obsession, is an important topic to cover. --Volcanopele 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Added a hydrology section and toned down the 'press release factor', needs fleshing out into a Hydrology of Mars article some time in the future :) sbandrews 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice work but that last paragraph still sounds rather "press releasy". I wish I knew more about this to edit it myself, but it should first introduce the concept of Martian gullies and what they tell us about the state of water in the Martian near-sub-surface. It can then mention the relatively youthful appearance of the features (few impact craters observed superimposed on the gully aprons for example. THEN, mention that a few gullies may have formed in the last few years, as observed by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. Cut out the date of the announcement, it isn't necessary. --Volcanopele 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
ready for inspection :) sbandrews 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sweet! I've edited it a little bit, but I think this section is much better. Changed my vote to support. --Volcanopele 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. "Other: This article also draws on the corresponding Wikipedia articles in various other languages" - Using other language Wikipedias as a source isn't verifiable, although if those are properly referenced you can simply add the references here. Michaelas10(Talk) 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - will remove that, it was a hangover from a long time ago.. sbandrews 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment — The reference "Peplow, Mark. How Mars got its rust. Retrieved on 2006-04-18" requires a subscription to read. I think a more public reference should be used in its place. References 14, 34, 59, 61, 65 and 68 are missing the date, which are available from the web sites. 22, 59 and 60 are missing the author's name. 72 is missing a year. 17 is from the web site of an acknowledged psychic—how reliable is it? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
We Martians have advanced far beyond your primitive earth concept of "sources", :D - fixed sbandrews 15:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This article would be improved by the inclusion, with the Keplerian orbital elements, of one or more moments of time for which Mars was at the perihelion of its orbit. (Jerry Abbott)
I think they are in the viewing Mars section. Also there is an 'Aspects of Mars' article linked from there - which incidently was flagged for deletion recently as being unencyclopedic - but I rescued it - see its talk page. As for the Keplerian orbital elements I'll take a look.. sbandrews 12:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - article now qualifies in terms of prose (as well as other criteria).cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support as good as the previous FA planet article, Jupiter. And why it is still in the "Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification"? igordebraga≠ 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.