Talk:Denning (Martian crater)

Denning (Martian crater) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 7, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Astronomy: Mars / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Mars task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

I added a picture here yesterday, and it disappeared. What happened?Jimmarsmars (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Denning (Martian crater)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maplestrip (talk · contribs) 06:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article today. It looks very good thus far, and haven't found any real issues in the first few paragraphs, but please allow me to finish examining it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am one of the IP addresses who worked on this article. Thank you so much for taking the time. I will address the comments systematically as I can. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

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):
Article is very well written. The sentences are easy to read and I have found no errors in the writing. The layout looks good and sections are of the right length.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The only paragraph that is currently not cited is the one describing Denning's physical location. I believe this is fine, ~~but the paragraph also makes value judgements regarding which nearby craters are worth mentioning. This likely needs to be sourced in some way.~~
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article is focused well on Denning specifically
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
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):
Images are of great quality, ~~but context behind the HiRISE image is not appropriately explained. Apparently, a relatively recent smaller impact crater has formed within Denning, but that is all the information given.~~
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

After some improvements, the article now meets the GA criteria. Thank you very much for your swift response, 47.147.221.147! Congratulations on your GA and thank you for your hard work :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Maplestrip!! :) And thank you as well for taking the time to review it. You make a good point about the HiRISE image as well. When I have a chance I'll see how I could integrate it informatively into the article, and if it is possible for me to directly source its positioning in Denning Crater! 47.147.221.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

The following issues are keeping this article from reaching GA status. I shall give the nominator some time to improve things where possible. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"which it most notably shares with Schiaparelli crater to the north and Dawes crater to the east-northeast." – This is something that needs to be sourced, because why are these two craters specifically notable? Flaugergues is also a WP:N-notable crater nearby.

Schiaparelli has a lot of popular name recognition because it was featured in The Martian and was actually selected as a landing site for the failed ExoMars lander. Dawes, however, isn't specifically notable! Would it be germane to this article to cite the reasons why Schiaparelli has this name visibility? 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I've rephrased the article to not make claims of either craters' notability 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bouguer and Lambert can't possibly be any closer than Flaugergues, right? Are they not named on the map?

Bouguer and Lambert are craters about the size of Denning that lie halfway between Denning and Bakhuysen on the map, but I can't really easily establish this other than by searching their names on Google Mars. Would this be an acceptable cite? In the meantime I've removed this sentence. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the crater that lies 500 km away from Denning?

It would be Lambert (per Google Mars), but see above comment 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiRISE spotted a recently formed impact crater in Denning, according to the image caption in "Observational history". However, the article proper doesn't mention it at all, and there is very little information about it in the article. Moreover, the Web page cited does not mention Denning.

I see what you mean! This article was initially in a gallery at the bottom of the image, and I think a previous editor included it to help readers visualize what the crater floor looked like up close. However I definitely don't see it in the source either, and there isn't anything in the scant sources I've read that would justify keeping it. I've removed the thumbnailed image. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no particular issues with how the location of the crater is described in the "Context" section anymore. It describes the location and some of the larger notable features around it in a completely neutral and easily confirmable way. The complete removal of the HiRISE image does make me wonder if no source exists for this information anywhere, but regardless, I do not think it is a majorly important aspect for the article. I think the image would definitely need to be cleared up if you would want to bring this to FA. For now, everything is good! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stray comments

Denning does seem subject to very little original writing. Most of the sources I can access are merely directory listings and the like. I am surprised that you managed to write such a good article on the feature despite this this, but it is a bit uncomfortable that most of the information we have on Denning also applies to the other craters in the Sinus Sabaeus quadrangle. I am not sure what this means for the article, honestly. Other than that, I have a few stray comments:

I hear your concerns! If it is any comfort, with regards to WP:N in particular, the Roth and Raitala sources cited herein specifically discuss Denning crater's morphological features, which may be regionally continuous but which nevertheless specifically discuss characteristics that are true of Denning. From what I can tell, most studies of the cratered Martian southern highlands (such as the Terra Sabaea region, where this crater is located) tend to compare the general characteristics of the craters of a region (irrespective of whether or not the crater is named - that happens at random over time, without regards to scientific discoveries that happen). Researchers only seem to focus on specific cases when someone sees something really geologically interesting like recurring slope lineae or evidence of past water resurfacing. Although I believe that this article in particular meets WP:N, I suppose I don't really know what it means for its overall place on Wikipedia either! 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does "up" on the Quadrangle map image equal North? If so, wouldn't Schiaparelli be north-west of Denning, rather than just "north"?

Fixed. Also, I added clarifications on directionality in both images in this article. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image is likely better placed at the start of the "Context" section, or alternatively at the start of the "Geology" section. In my opinion, an image looks badly placed just before a section header.

I've moved it to the head of Geology. It would be best-suited in Context, technically speaking, but the section is short enough that it won't be a leap for readers to connect the section to the map! 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe HiRISE will need to be linked in the "See also" section if information about its observations is included in the article.

I've dropped it from See Also. Side note, but would this be a good place to mention Bouguer and Lambert craters, since there isn't necessarily a good way to track it into the article itself? I've put it there temporarily but I can remove it. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Dennin crater", as it is called in the Sinus Sabaeus quadrangle, an alternative name or simply a typo?

This is a typo! I'll fix it on that page. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]