Talk:Geology of Venus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Geology of Venus has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Astronomy WikiProject Astronomy
WikiProject Solar System WikiProject Solar System

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Earth sciences Portal
Geology of Venus is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
  • The plate tectonics section has two seemingly contradictory bits:

"Venus no presenta indicios de tectónica de placas, sin embargo, su superficie sí presenta varios patrones geográficos..." and "El activo tectonismo de Venus ha generado cinturones montañosos plegados.." Which one is correct? I would imagine the latter is right, but I just did a straight translation. Fernando Rizo 00:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the seeming contradiction is presented by Venus itself! As the Spanish article says, Venus has no tectonic plates, yet it has many geological features associated with tectonic processes such as mountain folding, rift valleys and so forth. I think therefore it's reasonable to talk about the 'tectonism' of Venus, while pointing out that in fact the crust is not fractured into distinct plates. See also El Tectonismo de Venus --Keithlard 14:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Translation of decimal point: should "6.054 km" in the Spanish version (Procesos superficiales, paragraph 7) be translated to "6.054 kilometers" or 6,054 kilometers"? RandyUang 00:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Do we italizice the names of space probes or do we leave them normal? I'm seeing it both ways in this article. -- Titoxd 23:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I've made the names of space probes a wikilink where they first occur, and normal text thereafter. That seems a sensible scheme - it's not usual to see these names italicised in English text. -- Keithlard 01:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I just checked the Manual of Style, and it says that the names of ships should be italicized. So, does that include spaceships? Just wondering, because it would be easier and more effective to italicize them now than to have to go back... --Titoxd 02:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that includes spaceships. --Fenice 06:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
This approach may be correct according to the MoS, but it is not used in Venus, Magellan probe, Space exploration, Pioneer 10, Venera program, or Mariner program (though it is used in Galileo). However, consistency within an article is more important than consistency across the encyclopedia, so I agree we should go with the MoS here. --Keithlard 14:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Some more... the Spanish version of the article includes a false-color image that is referenced in the "Lava flows and canals" section. Do I just remove those references or should the image be placed on this page too? --Titoxd 00:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

'22% comprises of stereoscopic images' - 'comprises stereoscopic images' is more generally regarded as correct, I think, though both usages are recognised: cf http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=comprise To avoid a grammar war I suggest rewording this as 'including 22% stereoscopic images', or similar :-D --Keithlard 12:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, "comprises of" sounds strange to me to and should be avoided, even though it is correct. Using "include" instead is a good solution.--Fenice 13:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
"Includes" still didn't sound right. I changed it to "are", which gets the meaning across simply. - mako 06:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The more I look at it now, the less good any of our suggested wordings seems to me. Maybe I've just been looking at it too long :D 'Are' definitely looks wrong (it's like saying 'I have a big pile of money, of which 22% are Spanish'). How about '98% of the planet was mapped, 22% in 3D'? -- Keithlard 10:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
You're absolutely right; I'm embarassed I didn't catch that. Gotta be careful when editing late at night. - mako 03:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

'Canals' vs. 'channels' - I've changed this because I think 'channels' is the more common usage in English; 'canal' is almost always used to mean an artificial channel (hence the confusion over the mistranslation of Schiaparelli's 'canali' of Mars as 'canals' instead of 'channels', implying the presence of intelligent life). -- Keithlard 15:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks like the names of the books listed under "References" was translated literally from the Spanish Wikipedia article. Shouldn't the references be left as-is? I'm switching them back. -- Titoxd 23:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"While the most popular theory is that the channels are the result of thermal erosion by lava, there are other hypotheses, including the heated fluids formed and ejected during impacts." - I couldn't find a reference for this, so I took it out. Does anyone else have a source quoting this hypothesis, or has it been obsoleted? While I was looking, I found this very recent paper on theories about the channel formation:

which outlines a new hypothesis, probably worth mentioning. Sorry if I was hasty in removing the ejecta hypothesis, but some of the information in the Spanish article is a bit out of date. -- Keithlard 10:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. No, I looked for that, and I couldn't find anything. However, I did stuble upon this page, which looks like it has very good information. I would add it, but outside life calls and I have to take a Wikivacation. -- Titoxd 21:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Progress Report

So, it looks like we're done with the heavy-duty translating part. Now all that's left to do is to make sure that there aren't any gaps, copyedit, factcheck, and then expand the article so we can nominate it in WP:FAC. --19:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks great! I think this is already the best and most comprehensive of the astrogeology articles. A big thanks to everyone who's worked on it so far, especially those who did the bulk of the translation (it's a slow and tedious process for me with my basic Spanish). I hope I haven't trodden on anyone's well-loved edits, or seemed to be taking over with my constant polishing and rewriting, but I've really enjoyed working on it with you all as my first serious Wikipedia project. I think we're well on the way to featured status. Great work, everybody! -- Keithlard 00:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Excellent images - should we nominate some of them for featured images? — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Altimetry

The Altimetry for Pioneer 12 is stated as "The altimetry data had an accuracy of 150 kilometers." that sound helluva inaccurate, no? Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 11:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation

It would be nice to see this as a featured article. I think the main problem is organisation, which seems a bit illogical at the moment. How about this for a TOC to rearrange the article into:

  1. Observations
    How we know what we know - Venera probes, Magellan mission
  2. Volcanism
    2.1 Volcanoes
    2.2 Other volcanic features
    2.3 Comparison with terrestrial volcanism
  3. Tectonism
    3.1 Lack of plates
    3.2 Global resurfacing events
  4. Impact craters
  5. Erosion
  6. References
  7. External links
Worldtraveller 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craters

  • Re. impact craters:
"radar shows that they are rough and have not had time to be eroded down".

I don't think it's a matter of time - more that without water or wind to speak of, there's nothing to erode them down! Is this correct?

  • Also - the age of the surface is given here as 650Ma - what is the source for this? I believe that 500Ma is the more widely accepted estimate...

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Venera 9 panorama.gif

Image:Venera 9 panorama.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)