Talk:Cleopatra Patera

Hi Erica,

Nice page overall, I would work on a few things still.

I think your image needs some work, pretty rough so far.

I'm not sure I like the formatting of the list of data, I think it would flow better as paragraphs.

I would work on general formatting some more as well, the picture layout seems a little sloppy.

Cheers,

Adam Aturn4000 (talk)

Peer Review Take 2

1) You don't need to include all seven reference sources for a single sentence in the introduction. Line one is sited with sources 1-7 and it is very generic data. 2)Its confusing and a little distracting as to why the third section is numbered, it could just as easily be written in paragraph from, possibly with better explanations and with more fluidity. 3) What is the Magellan mission? You mention it several times in your wiki page, but all I know about it is that there was improved imaging technology. SuskoWiki (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

3 Improvements

3. More pictures about the rings will be helpful.

Kzhan15 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall a good start, but some room for improvement.

Suggestions:

More citations, sounds like you couldn't figure out the template process, but when you do, insert lots of citations throughout. If you need help with citations, I'd be happy to show you any time.

Images. Do you have an original image? it looks like the one at the bottom is a picture of maybe something from literature? if so, be careful because even publishing that to wikicommons is a copyright violation. Also might be useful to label rings discussed in wiki page on an image.

You seem to have quite a few fragmented sections, I would consider combining some of them for a nicer flow.

Create a short summary paragraph that should be placed above the table of contents telling a viewer briefly what the page will be about.

One more general suggestion is that you can view anybody elses code by viewing their page and clicking edit. This is extremely helpful for things like references of other wiki coding problems. I find it helpful to find a page I think is really good, then looking at the code to see how they achieved that.

Cheers,

Adam

Aturn4000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

1)In order to have the reference list at the bottom, insert the citation directly into the paragraph text. When you add the <reflist> at the bottom of the page it will search the page for any that you included in your work. You can quickly look through other people's wiki pages in the class to get a better understanding of what I mean.

2)Include a pin point on the Topographic map to show where Cleopatra Patera is located for a global comparison. You could also find a way to turn this into your original figure!

3)Move at least one of the pictures from the left of the screen to the right side of the page, it will break up the text a little bit and make it easier for the reader to focus on the material you are attempting to explain with this page. SuskoWiki (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Review by Graeme Bartlett

I was disappointed to find chunks of text copied from http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc1984/pdf/1325.pdf‎. You must rewrite everything in your own words, not just change one or two words.

You should make the subject bold by using the triple single quote like this: '''Cleopatra Patera''' to get this Cleopatra Patera. The unusual characteristics would not include its unknown origin, but there are probably some other characteristics that your source. says is unusual. What is "angle zone"? "shallower mantle adiabatic" sounds to me as if you have lost some words. What is a "phase cane"? Volcanic rock will always have "elemental abundances" so there must be something more particular about the abundances.

some of the technical content uses words or terms that our readers will not understand. These should be explained a bit more. Such terms include "obduction" "anatexis" "ironic root zone" "PV radar" "road regional slope" (could this really be "broad"?) "bus" (by?) and "nitrate melting".

"asymmetry of ring A rivals an impact hypothesis" rivals is an unusual term here - do you mean challenges? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Cleopatra (crater)

My apologies for bringing this up, but are these two articles about the same crater on Venus? This is not my area of expertise, that's why I wanted to bring this to your attention before merging the articles. Description and coordinates look oddly similar. --Kimse (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleopatra Patera is disabled name of Cleopatra: 1, 2. Stas (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes the crater should be a redirect to the patera article. And any unique content merged. I have merged the infobox. The only debate would be what is the current name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Debate? Evidently, patera must be a redirect to the crater article. "Cleopatra Patera" is an obsolete name. Stas (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Crater article is quite minuscule, so the Patera article should be moved if "crater" is the correct term. Just because Wikipedia says patera is obsolete does not mean it is true, google has about equal numbers of ghits either way so that is inconclusive. Looking for uses in the last year Wikipedia shows up prominently, but crater has more non-Wikipeida hits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

But what about mentioned links to Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature by International Astronomical Union? The object was renamed dead link‍] in 1992 after it turned out to be an impact crater instead of volcanic as initially suspected. "Patera" is a term for irregular (usually volcanic) craters, and names of impact craters generally do not have a generic term (Peterfreund et al., 1984, p.642, descriptor terms of planetary nomenclature). Stas (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)