Talk:Athabasca Valles

Athabasca Valles has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 5, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Astronomy: Mars / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Mars task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter#CTX (camera)|CTX]] The anchor (#CTX (camera)) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Athabasca Valles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mgasparin (talk · contribs) 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

1a. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

1b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?

It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

2a. Has an appropriate reference section:

I noticed that some sentences that do not have references at the end of them, (eg. first paragraph) but do have references at the end of the paragraph. I assume that these references apply to the whole paragaraph, but it is slightly ambiguous.

It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Is it neutral? It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

Is it stable? It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content Images look very good and illustrate the main points well.

Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Overall, this is a good article. I am unsure about the references, but if I could get a comment on this that would be excellent and I would be fine to pass this article.

Pass or fail?

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I am a contributor to this article who is editing from a different IP, and I saw your comment about the referencing concern and I just wanted to check in, and to clarify what you are referring to exactly. I made some adjustments where I added references in the two lead paragraphs of the article.

To clarify, in the first paragraph, those three citations at the end of the paragraph are actually backing the claim that Athabasca Valles is the youngest outflow channel on the planet because that claim is a pretty striking one to make in the context of Martian geomorphology, as I am seeing in the literature. 210.195.225.109 (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for you edits. I was referring to how some references were at the end of paragraphs instead of at the end of their resepective sentences, which could be ambiguous. Having looked at the article again, I am okay to pass it. Thanks! Mgasparin (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]