![]() | A fact from Geodynamics of Venus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 April 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Round 2:
Other little notes:
Your Wikipedia is really good! There is so much detail and provides the reader a great overview of the theories. You also cite a lot of scientific articles to back these theories and other details. The main fix is just providing some explanations for the non-geologists. (I wasn't a geologist before grad school, so I had a bit of trouble following your page.) Other than that, great! - Nicki
Round 1: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicki Button ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Hi John, I think your page is off to a great start. It's exciting to see something about Venus when the number of pages out there can be limiting. Your introduction provides a really good foundation for the rest of the article. Here are some possible improvements: (1) The introduction, specifically the first sentence, provides a lot of numbers. This may be better displayed in a box to the right (such as on the Wiki page: Venus, but only information relevant to your article) as compared to one all in one sentence. (2) The first model, Episodic Tectonic Models, would be stronger with citations and linking to other Wiki pages and/or external websites. (3) "Here is a list of models and theories that suggest various internal compositions and resurfacing mechanisms on the planet." could be removed and instead within each model description state which model is the most accepted (as well as least accepted and why). Great so far! You've included a lot of detail in what you've written. - Nicki Button
Hey Tyler,
Nice job with the page so far. You have a great introduction, but I do agree with Nicki when it comes to the large amount of statistics listed. I also like the information box at the end of the page. I did a presentation in structure about "blob tectonics" on Venus which may give you another model or help expand on another one (not sure if blob tectonics is called something else these days). A great original figure could be one that shows a simple diagram of the two geodynamic models. Good luck! Melissausburn ( talk) 05:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
For Wikipedia articles we like to start with one sentence that describes the topic, possibly with a definition or key fact. We really do need references for each paragraph. Also I am looking forward to the second model, and the pictures you may draw. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Geodynamic Models for Venus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nssdc":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The lead should clearly provide context for people unfamiliar with the topic, and offer a summary of the article rather than being purely introductory. One should not assume that the reader knows what a geodynamic model is, nor anything about the Soviet Venera landing. Despite the title, the lead makes me think this will be about the Geology of Venus. I recommend a rewrite of the lead to clearly, unambiguously introduce the topic, keeping technical terms minimized and fully explained within the body. Always keep in mind WP:MTAU. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 17:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
This article quotes extensively from at least one source (ref. # 10) without indicating that it does so. WolfmanSF ( talk) 01:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The redirect
Cytherodynamics has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14 § Cytherodynamics until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont) 22:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Geodynamics of Venus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 April 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Round 2:
Other little notes:
Your Wikipedia is really good! There is so much detail and provides the reader a great overview of the theories. You also cite a lot of scientific articles to back these theories and other details. The main fix is just providing some explanations for the non-geologists. (I wasn't a geologist before grad school, so I had a bit of trouble following your page.) Other than that, great! - Nicki
Round 1: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicki Button ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Hi John, I think your page is off to a great start. It's exciting to see something about Venus when the number of pages out there can be limiting. Your introduction provides a really good foundation for the rest of the article. Here are some possible improvements: (1) The introduction, specifically the first sentence, provides a lot of numbers. This may be better displayed in a box to the right (such as on the Wiki page: Venus, but only information relevant to your article) as compared to one all in one sentence. (2) The first model, Episodic Tectonic Models, would be stronger with citations and linking to other Wiki pages and/or external websites. (3) "Here is a list of models and theories that suggest various internal compositions and resurfacing mechanisms on the planet." could be removed and instead within each model description state which model is the most accepted (as well as least accepted and why). Great so far! You've included a lot of detail in what you've written. - Nicki Button
Hey Tyler,
Nice job with the page so far. You have a great introduction, but I do agree with Nicki when it comes to the large amount of statistics listed. I also like the information box at the end of the page. I did a presentation in structure about "blob tectonics" on Venus which may give you another model or help expand on another one (not sure if blob tectonics is called something else these days). A great original figure could be one that shows a simple diagram of the two geodynamic models. Good luck! Melissausburn ( talk) 05:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
For Wikipedia articles we like to start with one sentence that describes the topic, possibly with a definition or key fact. We really do need references for each paragraph. Also I am looking forward to the second model, and the pictures you may draw. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Geodynamic Models for Venus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nssdc":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The lead should clearly provide context for people unfamiliar with the topic, and offer a summary of the article rather than being purely introductory. One should not assume that the reader knows what a geodynamic model is, nor anything about the Soviet Venera landing. Despite the title, the lead makes me think this will be about the Geology of Venus. I recommend a rewrite of the lead to clearly, unambiguously introduce the topic, keeping technical terms minimized and fully explained within the body. Always keep in mind WP:MTAU. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 17:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
This article quotes extensively from at least one source (ref. # 10) without indicating that it does so. WolfmanSF ( talk) 01:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The redirect
Cytherodynamics has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14 § Cytherodynamics until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont) 22:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)