Talk:Phlegra Montes/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article complies with the relevant sections of MoS. I've done some light copyediting, but some prose issues still need to be cleared up. First, the name "Phlegra Montes" is plural (the singular is "Mons"), and the pluralized names of mountain ranges are normally preceded by "the" in speech (e.g. "the Alps", "the Pyrenees"); whenever the article says "Phlegra Montes" to mean the mountains, it should say "the Phlegra Montes". I've already changed a bunch of these, but there are a couple more edge cases that need to be examined, because it seems as though the text is sometimes referring to Phlegra Montes not as a group of mountains but as a "province" on the Martian surface, in which usage the name could be construed as singular. You need to look at every instance of "Phlegra Montes" (and Phlegra Dorsa, for that matter, which is also plural) and either put "the" before it or make it clear in the sentence that you mean the "region" or "province".
Thank you for looking through and identifying this - I have gone through every mention of "Phlegra" and I ended up (with one exception) preceding each case with a definite article. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second, there's another pluralization issue: the article sometimes refers to the Phlegra Montes as a "mountain range" but sometimes as a "system of mountain ranges". I understand that there's really no objective point where one "mountain range" ends and another begins, so it's presumably a matter of interpretation whether the Phlegra Montes are one range or many, but our article should pick one and stick with it (preferably whichever is more common in the published sources).
This concern is resolved. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third, there's some excessive detail and overlinking. We don't need to be reminded that the LPSC meets in The Woodlands every time it comes up, and, if it's going to be said at all, then it should appear the first time the LPSC is mentioned. Likewise, there's no need to specify that Cornell is in New York, that University College Dublin is in Ireland, or that the Open University is in England (the links to their articles suffice). Many terms are wikilinked again and again throughout the article; once in the lead and once in the body is all that's called for.

Fourth, in terms of organization, I'm not sure I see the point of a "2000 to 2010" section that only contains papers from 2010. If it's going to be divided up by years, is there a good reason not to just have "20th century" and "21st century" sections? Or, better, it could be broken up according to significant eras in the range's observation and study, if there are any breakthrough papers or observations to use as watersheds.
I admit I've struggled to find a way to properly subdivide this in an way that is guided first and foremost by the literature. Breaking this up by watershed discoveries would be ideal if there had been enough coherent study to pull out a clear trend, but I'm not sure that is the case for the Phlegra Montes in particular at this point in time. I think I will subdivide this according to 20th century and 21st century per your recommendation. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we are on the topic, I loosely note that in the planetary sciences, discovery comes in bursts whenever a new spacecraft (with higher-resolution cameras or novel experiments onboard) successfully begins its science mission in the orbit of a new body. So on Mars, for instance, in the 1970s you had Viking come into orbit. Then In the 1990s, MGS; and then the 2001 Mars Odyssey, MRO and then the ESA's Mars Express in the 21st century. The pattern can be indirectly reflected in the kinds of datasets that the researchers use during each period, as they state in their publications. I don't think it makes sense for this article, since it doesn't really seem like any one research group has thoroughly focused on assessing this area yet, but it might work for ones of keener focus in the community such as Olympus Mons or the Valles Marineris. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other small bits: the sentence "Halfway is in the area where Tyndall crater is located." needs to be rewritten with the crater as its subject; really, most of the small paragraph should be condensed into one or two sentences and then moved up into the first paragraph of the section, which discusses the location of the range. Are the "Thaumasia Highlands" different from the Thaumasia Plateau? The phrase "...published a conference paper in which a series of parallel rises in the Thaumasia Plateau around the Coprates Rise..." needs a verb for what was done by or to the series of parallel rises in the paper. I'm not convinced the allusion to the Laurentide ice sheet in the lead is necessary; I find it distracting. In the second paragraph of "2000 to 2010", I don't think "Co-opted" is the word we're looking for.
Tyndall crater and paragraph reorganization - done. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the "Thaumasia Highlands" versus "Thaumasia Plateau" - yes, these are actually different geomorphic provinces on the Martian surface. The "Thaumasia highlands" is traditionally defined in the literature as the ring of mountains that surround the Thaumasia Plateau, which is a collection of volcanic plains provinces. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree upon review and have removed the Laurentide ice sheet reference. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have resolved the "co-opted" comment. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The article has a reference section and shows no signs of plagiarism from online sources. The citation style is a bit inconsistent and incomplete; all the names need to look the same (currently some do and some don't have periods after the given name initials), all the journal articles need DOIs, and all the journals that have Wikipedia articles should have their names wikilinked, along with any of the authors who have their own articles.
I have harmonized all author name formats, wikilinked all authors and journals where possible, and added DOIs for all peer-reviewed articles. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes the geological core material of the massifs as being of "Amazonian–Hesperian age", but the Kress et al. source appears to describe them as "Hesperian–Noachian"; am I missing something, or does this need to be changed to harmonize the article with the source?
Thanks for the catch - no, you are definitely right, that was a factual error. I have fixed the two mentions of that age range to align with Kress et al. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article seems to cover all the major aspects of the topic: its geographic context, its hypothesized geological origins, and the history of its study.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The coverage is appropriately neutral and doesn't e.g. advocate for any particular interpretation of the geology at the site.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The images in the article are relevant and have appropriate licenses, mostly from NASA and ESA. I'd like to see more of the excellent images from the Commons category included, e.g. illustrating concentric crater fill, in relevant sections of the article. The caption of the eskers image needs to be more clear about whether the image is 5 km "across" vertically or horizontally.
I have clarified the esker image descriptor. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are a lot of good images that showcase the phenomena described in the Phlegra Montes region. However (at least in the case of concentric crater fill), it looks like the examples of the phenomena currently on the Commons are not actually pictures that are taken from within the Phlegra Montes region (eg. this image). Because there may be subtle region-specific differences in the morphology of CCF, I am not sure it could be appropriate to include a picture from that given region unless they were explicitly analyzed in relation to each other in an abstract or a journal article. I can include it nevertheless, with a caveat. What are your thoughts? (In any case I will continue looking through the article for other instances where images could be added.) 47.147.221.147 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! I think that any image of CCF could still be helpful to the average reader, but it would certainly be better to have one that actually came from these mountains, and I don't suppose it's essential. The MOLA map of the quadrangle is quite helpful in picturing the geographic context. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an additional regional-scale image in the Context section to help visualize the writing therein. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A solid article with a lot of good content! With a little polish it should be able to reach the GA standard. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your time and attention in performing your review! I am sorry for the delay - I had been checking WP:GAN for updates but had not been checking frequently as of late. I have addressed a few of the comments (in part) and will continue to work through them over the next few days (a week at most). 47.147.221.147 (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all of my concerns have been addressed, so this is hereby promoted to GA! Thanks for the responsive editing! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]