This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Readers and lurkers, what do you think about this article[edit]
I'd reckon that at least one people see this talk page every day. If that person is you, please tell me:
What do you like about this article?
What do you don't like about this article?
What is something that you wish this article would talk more about?
I want to get some ideas for improvement, because the Mars article as it is right now is great, but not amazing. I want to turn this into an amazing article. Readers, anonymous editors and registered editors, feel free to make a comment! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue is the sources: some are just old (see 1 (1994), 3 (2000), 6 (2007), 8 (1998), ... 85 (2000), 86 (1999), 222 (1998), etc.). Some of them are certainly fine, but they are all from before the Curiosity and Perseverance missions, and who knows how well these sources have aged. The second issue is with press releases, which should be avoided for a scientific article, and now we have the Guardian (67, 121, 192), BBC (63, 109, 146, 156, 181, 256, 264), The New York Times (6 sources), etc.; and some pop-science books (like 218). Scholarly textbooks like 'Mars: An Introduction to its Interior, Surface and Atmosphere' (used only three times) are more appropriate, but of course, harder to use.
One example is refs 28, 29, 30 - all three are press-releases about the same article, though neither WP nor these sources have a link to the real paper (though 28 is paywalled, so maybe it has the link).
Please note that I did not check all the refs I've mentioned; I just think that for an FA the sources are not great and can be improved. Artem.G (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it seems that improving the references will be necessary to make this article meet modern FA standard. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a great article with tons of information. My take - it won’t hurt to add additional multimedia to make the article more robust. For example, the Perseverance rover recorded the first sounds from Mars a few weeks ago. These were the first sounds ever from another planet. Fairly significant. Things like that would definitely help the youth who connect with this article who probably cannot immediately relate to all the scientific figures in the Infobox Thistheyear2023 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thistheyear2023 I just recently reformatted media in Solar System article based on another suggestion and will work through each planets' articles. Thank you for your suggestion! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
