Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Mars observation/archive1

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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 17:08, 30 July 2012 [1]
.

History of Mars observation

History of Mars observation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): RJH (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I like to think it satisfies the criteria, or at least is within close striking distance. The article covers observation of Mars from Earth. (It is meant to be complementary to exploration of Mars; the latter describes the direct exploration of Mars by spacecraft. The two are basically daughter articles of the main Mars article.) I've tried to cover all of the scientific highlights. What do you think? Regards, RJH (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good Comments. 8 days without any feedback? Frightening. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... just a couple of days actually. RJH (talk)

After a brief lead review, I am satisfied with the clarity and accessibility of the introduction. The details of the review have been moved to the FAC talk page to avoid clutter. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the publisher locations and changed the aforementioned publishers to say Macmillan. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check.

  • Thought I'd do a source check and started with footnote #1. Didn't like the sound of the book title. Visited the webpage of the listed publisher (which, incidentally, doesn't match the publisher name at the hyperlinked page). These people publish books about UFOs and the healing power of magnets. So: what on earth (or on Mars) makes this a reliable source? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware of that, and I haven't been able to find much corroborating information. Hence I modified the article and based the date on
      Senemut star map, which is referenced by Novaković (2008). Hopefully that's okay for now. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • better, ta.

That's all i was going to check. Please respond to the two key issues above. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your checks, hamiltonstone. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Early telescope observations section could do with an opening line (even though obvious) about what observers could see or conclude about Mars without a telescope. i.e. that it had no features? Otherwise just sorta launches into things.....
Good point. I've added a couple of introductory sentences and clarified how much detail Galileo could (or could not) see. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the paras in the Refining planetary parameters are a bit small, rendering the flow of prose a bit choppy - if you can combine any I think it would be helpful.
Okay I added a few cited comments, rearranged a couple of paragraphs and merged some others. Does that read any better? – RJH (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall looking good, not seeing any deal-breakers prose-wise or any gaping holes in content....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Casliber. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportQueries. Good article, happy to support if you could look at my queries below.

  • Orbital models para 4. Are you intending to make a distinction between "
    angular size
    " (linked) and "angular diameter" (not linked)? They sound like the same thing to me. If they are not the same, some explanation / linking is in order. If they are the same, why give the arc-minute estimate as "2" the first time and "2.0" the second time?
    • Fixed. In this case angular size and angular diameter are synonymous, but I changed it to the former. RJH (talk)
  • Orbital models para 4 versus Early telescope observations para 1: consistency / clarity issues. We have "...the Indian astronomical text Surya Siddhanta estimated the angular size of Mars as 2 arc-minutes...", which is then explained to be based on an "inaccurate guess". In contrast we then refer to "...the measurements of Ptolemy, who found a value of 1.57 arc-minutes. This is close to the resolution of the human eye" but in the next section we learn the maximum diameter is in fact "25 arcseconds; this is much too small for the naked eye to resolve." First, 1.57 arc-minutes is around 100 arc-seconds, and is not, according to naked eye, "close" to the resolution of the human eye, but is less than half that resolution. If it is a fact that the max. diameter is 25 arcseconds, then surely Ptolemy's figure is just as much a guess as that of the Indian astronomers. Yet that section refers to "estimate" and "guess", while the text on Ptolemy refers to "measurements" and "found a value". It seems in fact Ptolemy was guessing as much as the Indians were, and the text should reflect that.
    • I've tweaked the text. Is that clearer? RJH (talk)
  • Early telescope observations, para 3. This begins by telling us that Cassini "tackled the problem of the physical scale of the Solar System". It then gives the results on Mars parallax (a value within 10% of actual). However, we never learn what the result was of the original intention behind the observation: determining the physical scale of the solar system. Do we know what conclusion was reached?
    • I've added a sentence of explanation. Does that work? I'd rather not have the text go off on a tangent, so it's pretty brief. RJH (talk)
  • para 4. "measured the axial tilt of the planet's poles to the orbital plane as roughly 28.5°." Really? "roughly" to within half a degree??
    • I've removed "roughly". (Note that the resolution of the human eye is 0.07°, so half a degree is pretty rough. Shrug.) RJH (talk)
  • Martian canals: "His term canali was popularly mistranslated in English as canals". Please add what the correct translation would have been - this would help explain Schiaparelli's intention / analysis.
    • In the previous section it says, "In 1869, he observed two dark linear features on the surface that he referred to as canali, which is Italian for 'channels' or 'grooves'." RJH (talk)

hamiltonstone (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your observations and support. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- image check, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I briefly looked at the images and all of them are good except two:

File:Mars_views_001.jpg: It is not strictly speaking a NASA image. It is a collage of different images including some from NASA. I am worried about an image "from 1960s', which appears to lack an appropriate license.
I selected a different illustration. This one appears to be in the public domain.
File:ALH84001.jpg: The links are dead. So, I can not check whether this is a NASA image.
That NASA site seems to be messed up. For now at least, I replaced it with File:ALH84001 meteorite Smithsonian.jpg, which has a CC-share-alike license. We can always put the other one back if the site gets repaired.

Regards, Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking—albedo is linked thrice, including twice in lead, and you certainly don't need to repeat "obvious" links like Sun, Mars, Moon, since we aren't likely to forget what they are while reading the article. Please check.
  • "Detailed" appears twice in consecutive sentences in lead
  • became popularized among the public—I think you mean popular with
    • One of the senses of popularized is, "to present in generally understandable or interesting form". Regards, RJH (talk)
  • discovery of the telescope,—invention, not discovery
  • red shifted—one word, redshifted, and would be hyphenated even if two
  • orientalist Percival Lowell—technically true, but much better known as an astronomer, which is also more relevant to this article
  • removed reference to occupation / expertise, but if other editors don't like that, then suggest add "astronomer". My view is that that would be redundant, since one can take it as read that most people named in this article are astronomers. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • has taken the highest resolution images of Mars ever captured from Earth—in what sense is the HST on Earth?
    • Well, that's why I wrote "from Earth", rather than "on Earth"; from a technical perspective, the HST is at the same distance from Mars as an Earth-based telescope. Do you think it would be better to say, "from the neighborhood of Earth"? Regards, RJH (talk)
I think the "popularized" bit is clunky, but no big deal. I'm happy with Lowell as it is now, the "orientalist" made it sound as if he was doing astronomy on his days off. HST probably better as is, unless someone else nitpicks the same point. Supporting above now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jim. Percival Lowell did spend a decade or more traveling the East and writing about the region, so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to call him both an astronomer and an orientalist. But no matter. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2012 (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_candidates/History_of_Mars_observation/archive1&oldid=1046367958"