Jump to content

Talk:Mars Society

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateMars Society is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleMars Society 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 29, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 31, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
January 14, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 8, 2024Good article nomineeListed
May 23, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 4, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Mars Society's founding conference included a rancorous debate about the ethics of terraforming?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cpumeran.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which Peter Smith?

[edit]

The reference to Peter Smith links to a disambiguation page. It is not immediately clear which Peter Smith is meant. -Ahruman 13:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC) This was already fixed, to refer to Peter H. Smith's page; I also added a middle initial of H to the disambiguation page. -Bruce38 21:20, 12 Jan 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mars Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History section and Mars society's mission, goals are mixed and merged into one section. Need to separate for betterment

[edit]

Hi Wikipedians,

The history section and Mars society's mission, objectives, goals are mixed and merged into one single section; making a rather incoherent transition. For better presentation and from reader's point of view, I think we need to separate them into separate sections.

I will only separate them as two sections without altering any of the original content. Please let me know if anyone has a better opinion or suggestion. Thanks

Best, Suman B R

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mars Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and New Zealand Mars Society Chapters

[edit]

Australia and New Zealand also have chapters of the Mars Society.

NZVortex (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mars Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Edits to Come

[edit]

Hello everyone! I am a student, and my assignment is to pick a Wikipedia article that I could make a significant contribution to. I look forward to improving this article with you! I will mainly be expanding on the information for each chapter around the world.

Update on 9 Sept 2018:

  • Fixed and eliminated some of the titles for consistency and redundancy.
  • Sentences were added/edited in the Australia and New Zealand sections.
  • Citations were added/edited in the Bulgaria, Spain, New Zealand, and Australia sections.

Cpumeran (talk) 9:40, 3 September 2018 (PDT)

Chapters

[edit]

I’ve removed some chapters that don’t seem to be in any way notable or in some cases even have many members. There was no information of any value to readers other than the bald fact of the chapters’ existence (and not even that, in one case), which can be gleaned from the website. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I think Mars Society Australia should be merged to here, as it is not a very notable chapter of Mars Society with poor sourcing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think a lot of articles from Category:Mars Society should also merged to here, because individually there's so little you can write about them from reliable sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mars Society/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 23:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! Jumping in to start this review. I will be leaving comments in the table below. I should get round to adding comments tomorrow. Looking forward to getting started! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 23:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

Lead

  • Very minor point (feel free to ignore): First sentence could be reordered to be a bit clearer, as such: The Mars Society is a nonprofit organization, founded in 1998 by Robert Zubrin, that advocates for human Mars exploration and colonization.
  • Change lobby to lobbying.
  • Maybe change named to called in both instances in the lead.

Background and founding

  • In 1981, the first public conference for Mars exploration was organized and named Case for Mars, by students at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Was the conference named Case for Mars by the students, or was it organised by the students? If the latter, I'd suggest rearranging the sentence to make that clearer.
  • Two years later at the next Mars launch window, two launch vehicles, one carrying crew and habitat, and the other carrying another factory and Earth-return vehicle for the next mission. This sentence doesn't make sense.
  • between $250 to $500 billion Change to between $250 and $500 billion.
  • and those written to Zubrin Change to and those who had written to Zubrin.

Mars analog habitats

  • The first paragraph mentions the MDRS: In December that year, the MDRS's construction in Hanksville, Utah was completed. However, it is first defined properly in the second paragraph: The money was to be used on the next Mars analog habitat, called the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS). I think some re-ordering is needed.
  • From 2001 to 2005 Mars mission simulations at FMARS are usually 2–8 weeks long by ten rotated crews, in batch of 6–7 people. This sentence doesn't make sense.
  • The first four-month-long mock mission was done in early 2007, revealing collaboration issues between the crews. I don't think this quite makes sense. Maybe change to "which revealed collaboration issues between the crews"? Even better if you could specify a bit about what those were.

Design

  • Both stations originally have the same basic design Should this be Both stations originally had the same basic design?
  • Many equipment were broken Possibly should be Many pieces of equipment were broken.


1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Lead

  • Section is quite short. More detail could be added about how/why it was founded, and definitely more about the MDRS and FMARS.

Layout

  • I think the general layout of the prose is a bit confusing. For instance, in the History section, there is a subsection dedicated to the Mars analog habitats. However, further down there is a whole separate section on the Mars Analog Research Station Program. These sections, in my opinion, should be combined—possibly the best way of doing this would be to combine the Mars analog habitats subsection into the main Mars Analog Research Station Program section. Then, some of the current detail in the current Mars analog habitats subsection might be better placed in a "History" subsection of Mars Analog Research Station Program. Hope that makes sense.

Words to watch

  • None identified.

Fiction

  • N/A

List incorporation

  • N/A


2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Sources are neatly presented in the appropriate places.


2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

Source check

Häuplik-Meusburger, Sandra; Bishop, Sheryl; O’Leary, Beth (2021)

  • The first four-month-long mock mission was done in early 2007, revealing collaboration issues between the crews. The source states that the four-month-long mission took place in the summer of 2007—not early 2007?
  • Except for the pod, the modules are connected via tunnels. The source seems to state that all buildings are connected by tunnels except the robotic observatory, not the pod.

Cusack, Stacy L. (1 January 2010)

  • In December that year, the MDRS's construction in Hanksville, Utah Tiny point, but the source states the MDRS was constructed near Hanskville, not in Hanksville. Also see point in 1a above about moving this sentence.

S. F. Portree, David (March 2000)

  • checkY

Portree, David S. F. (15 April 2013)

  • Two years later at the next Mars launch window, two launch vehicles, one carrying crew and habitat, and the other carrying another factory and Earth-return vehicle for the next mission. Struggling to find this detail in the source.

Hogan, Thor (May 2007)

  • one-twentieth of the Mars plan in NASA's Space Exploration Initiative. Is the SEI the same as the "space agency plan" mentioned in the source?

Blakeslee, Sandra (18 August 1998)

  • with four thousand mails and emails sent to Zubrin by readers. The source states "more than" (and "mails" is a bit confusing of a word), so I'd suggest changing to "over four thousand letters and emails".
  • On 13 August 1998 I might be missing something, but I can't see that 13 August is mentioned in the source as the founding date.

Conroy, J Oliver (17 February 2022)

  • checkY

Bishop, Sheryl L. (2011)

  • The first Mars analog facility of the Mars Society is the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS) on the Devon Island. Maybe change to "The first Mars analog facility to be sponsored by the Mars Society", as I think that's more accurate?

Hall, James (8 March 2002)

  • checkY

Mars Society (23 August 2001)

  • checkY

"About the Mars Society". Mars Society

  • checkY

Foust, Jeff (26 February 2015)

  • checkY

Goodyear, Dana (19 October 2009)

  • checkY

"Steering Committee – 2022". Mars Society

  • checkY

Wall, Mike (22 September 2016)

  • checkY

CBC News. 6 June 2011

  • checkY

Rayome, Alison DeNisco (3 March 2020)

  • checkY

Vargas-Cuentas, Natalia I.; Roman-Gonzalez, Avid (June 2017)

  • The MARS Oz is also in the planning phase by the Australian Mars Society The source is from 2017 - is the MARS Oz still in the planning phase?


2c. it contains no original research.
  • From source checks, I am content there has been no OR.


2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

My main observations regarding this criteria are that there are examples of sentences in the article which are close to the wording used in the source.

  • All food and supplies are at the habitat or being supplied by the crew, and there is no resupplying while a mission is in progress. Because there are very few spare parts on-site, crews must be able to repair broken equipment themselves. These sentences are quite close copies of what is in the source, so I'd suggest rewording.
  • It was first occupied in July and August 2000 This is a direct copy of what's written in the source, so I'd suggest rewording. Perhaps something like "During July and August 2000, the first people arrived and worked at the facility."
  • As of April 2020, the MDRS has hosted nineteen Mars mission simulations, totaling 236 crews in 6–7 people batches in missions lasting from 1–2 weeks. Another very closely-copied sentence from the source. Would suggest changing.
  • A ladder connects both floors together. This sentence stands out as being almost directly copied from the source. I think the section can be easily reworded to avoid this, for example: "The lower desk has more but smaller rooms, and the doors in the FMARS are square and tall. The upper deck is connected to the lower deck by a ladder. It has a shared space which is used for both computing and dining. The galley consists of a stove, microwave, and a water container. The galley's and ladder's position are swapped compared to the MDRS, as well as the toilet and bathroom."
  • Except for the pod, the modules are connected via tunnels. At the habitat, the lower deck is used for science and engineering activities. Like the FMARS, it has a shower and toilet, a biology and geology laboratory, two simulated airlocks, an extravehicular activity preparation area, and storage space. The upper deck is used for social activities, dining and communications, and has seven separate crew quarters. In the loft area, a tank stores freshwater and a hatch is used for maintaining antenna and weather instruments. Water for flushing the toilet is provided by the greenhouse, and electricity is provided by batteries under the habitat. When comparing this section of the article against the source, there are quite a few instances of very close wording. I also don't think there necessarily needs to be information as detailed as how the toilet is flushed. I suggest changing to reflect the information in the source but not as directly, maybe something like:
    • On the lower deck of the MDRS, there are hygiene facilities for crew members as well as spaces dedicated to laboratory work and storage. The upper deck contains areas for eating, socialising and sleeping. The MDRS also has a loft which stores technical equipment.


3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

To help assess this criteria, I have looked at the Mars Society website to get a sense of their main activities and history.

This article covers:

  • History of studies of human missions to Mars.
  • Why the society was founded.
  • Its main activities, with most of the focus on FMARS and MDRS.

It could include the following key details (with suggested sources):

Background and founding

  • Information about the Founding Declaration of the Mars Society. I think Blakeslee 1998 covers this.

Structure and activities

  • Something about how it is a non-profit with volunteers. Maybe the Mars Society website would be appropriate as a starter?
  • More on the VR and University Rover Challenge. I know the latter has its own article but I feel like the info in this article could be expanded. When did these projects start?
  • The Mars Society has chapters all over the world. This feels like important information to include in the section dedicated to how the organisation is structured. You don't have to list every single chapter, but highlighting a few would be good. There is a list on pp.251-252 of this book: On To Mars! By Vladimir Pletser, 2017, Springer (accessible via Google Books).
  • Were there any notable conferences?


3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • In general, the article focusses disproportionately on the FMARS and MDRS. I see both have their own articles, which you have nominated for deletion. I think the deletion discussions for those pages are outside of the scope of this review, but the amount of information included in the Mars Society article about the two projects suggests they are notable enough for their own articles. To state the obvious, the Mars Society article should be focussed on the society. Currently, the section devoted to that information (Structure and activities) is very short. I'm not too familiar with how to handle scope issues like this, so will just gives the heads up now that I might have to ask for a second opinion from someone more knowledgeable.
  • There are some places in the article where there is unnecessarily detailed information:
    • Second paragraph of Background and founding is unnecessary. It is about the Mars Direct plan, not the Mars Society.
    • In mid-2001, the Mars Society received a $5000 check from Elon Musk for a fundraiser event. Zubrin took notice and invited Musk for coffee. There, he talked about the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station and the Translife Mission which included experiments where a spinning capsule would subject mice to Martian gravity. This could be cut out and I think the prose would still make sense, and make it more focussed.
    • Musk had shared a plenary talk with Michael D. Griffin at the fourth Mars Society convention where he announced his plans to send a greenhouse to Mars. He left the Mars Society shortly after and by April 2002, Musk abandoned the project and founded SpaceX, inviting aerospace engineers that he had met beforehand. I don't see how this is related to Research and engagement.
      • The second paragraph of this section seems like it is about operations, and therefore should be included in the Operations subsection. Unfortunately that makes the Research and engagement activities section empty.


4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Article is presented neutrally.


5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Recent edits are mostly be nominator and are constructive.


6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • All images have appropriate copyright status.


6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Images are appropriate and have suitable captions.
  • Not part of the GA criteria, but second-last image requires an alt description.


7. Overall assessment.
  • Both the nominator and reviewer have agreed to fail this GAN for now. This is primarily due to issues with the focus and scope of the article (criteria 3). See comments in those sections of the table.

How to improve the article

Some suggestions following the review, alongside those in the table above:

  • Assess whether the articles for FMARS and MDRS need to be deleted, or if they could be brought up to standard using many of the sources from the Mars Society article. If the articles are not deleted, they can be linked to from the Mars Society article and content about those projects can be slimmed down. This will greatly improve the focus of the Mars Society article.
  • Reordering the article might help with its focus. There are multiple sections and subsections on FMARS and MDRS currently, when they should really be contained within one or two sections.
  • More on the actual structure, purpose and organisation of the society.

Hope this helps, but as mentioned below, I'm very happy to take more questions!


Replies by the nominator

[edit]

I write my replies here to avoid cluttering the table. Forgive me if I had complicated the GA reviewing process. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1a: Done, with some adjustments to the recommendations for the lead and the Mars analog habitats section. The "collaboration issues" in the source are quote "Results from this first attempt [...] revealed a number of issues (e.g., multicultural conflicts, coping inefficiencies) that underscored the need for longer studies situated in real environments that pose true isolation and risk.", and I paraphrased that on Wikipedia as "which revealed cultural conflicts and inadequate coping strategies".
  • 1b: I expanded to lead to talk about how MDRS and FMARS operates in general and splited the "Mars analog habitats" section to be "Construction of Mars analog habitats" and "Research and engagement activities" for clarity. I don't really want to combine both of the sections because I want to expand on other aspects of the Mars Society's activities.
  • 2b:
    • "The first four-month-long mock mission was done in early 2007, revealing collaboration issues between the crews" Removed "early"
    • "Except for the pod, the modules are connected via tunnels" fixed
    • "In December that year, the MDRS's construction in Hanksville, Utah" fixed
    • "Two years later at the next Mars launch window, two launch vehicles, one carrying crew and habitat, and the other carrying another factory and Earth-return vehicle for the next mission" The details is in "In January 1999, NASA would launch two more Ares rockets. One payload would be identical to the 1996 propellant..." in the source, which I subtracted January 1999 by December 1996 to get roughly 2 years. If you want, I can provide an additional source for that.
    • "one-twentieth of the Mars plan in NASA's Space Exploration Initiative" yes, that's what the text is referring to, as the whole source is talking about SEI
    • "with four thousand mails and emails sent to Zubrin by readers" fixed
    • "On 13 August 1998" Well, this is complicated. The source is written in Aug. 18, 1998 and says "And, last week, ... the founding convention of the Mars Society" and "four-day event -- it ended Sunday". By deduction, that is 13 August 1998. This is a pretty roundabout way to get the date because there is literally no other source that says the full date (not even the Mars Society itself) but I'm more than happy to chop the days if you want to.
    • "The first Mars analog facility of the Mars Society is the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station..." Yes, the Mars Society built and owned the station. Rephrased a bit to make it more clear.
    • "The MARS Oz is also in the planning phase by the Australian Mars Society" seems so as I found a source in October 2022, though the plan is not named "Mars Oz" anymore.

User:Unexpectedlydian, may you put the review on hold or even fail the review outright? Based on your comments at 3a and 3b, I think that I need a lot more time than what GAN allows in order for me to build up the article's content. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CactiStaccingCrane, thank you for responding to my comments so quickly. I think that's a sensible request. I will complete all parts of the review first, then I think I will have to fail it based on criteria 3. If you're planning to add further content into the article, that's great and please do! However, I agree that it requires more time than the GA process usually allows for. If you have any questions at all please do get in touch :) Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 15:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mars Society/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cocobb8 (talk · contribs) 23:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

Last updated: 00:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC) by FACBot

Status:  Passed

100% reviewed

   


See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
2c) it contains no original research
{{GAIconList/icon|}y} 2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

[edit]

@CactiStaccingCrane: I am starting this review. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 23:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article, and it reads quite well and can easily be understood. There are a couple of things that'd need to be fixed before I can approve for 1a) and 1b):

  • Since its founding, the Mars Society has been active with a series of events and research activities. It might be better to replace with by something like by organizing to make it clear that Mars Society is coordinating those events.
  • The society's aims are garnering public support for human Mars missions, lobbying government and space agencies, and researching the effects on Martian crews via Mars analog habitats. Redundant sentence, mostly all of what is said here was already mentioned in the lead. I leave it up to you if you want to rephrase it, move it or delete it.
  • He also noted that the popularity of Mars One had dwarfed the one of Mars Society and that the perceived absurdness of former's plan by the public was potentially detrimental to the later's reputation. Did you mean of the former's?
  • With a duration of four days, the conference was attended by 750 persons and can be seen as a spiritual successor to the prior Case for Mars conferences. Here, you need to mention by whom it was regarded as such, otherwise this violates NPOV.
  • Some of the invited were from the Mars Underground and those who had written to Zubrin about The Case For Mars. Unreferenced, maybe citation 8 or 16 should be moved here?
  • The society also formulated plans to launch space-based experiments, which were never materialised though. Language is too familiar here, consider changing though with a more formal expression.
  • Unfortunately, during transport from the United Kingdom to Krafla, Iceland, where it was to be deployed, the Euro-MARS sustained damage. Consider removing unlikely to meet the NPOV requirement.
  • The Mars Society is also planning to build another Mars analog station in Arkaroola, Australia, as of October 2022. A little too outdated.
  • Once funding have been established, the Institute will then build its own campus. Also needs to be updated and rephrased.
User:Cocobb8, I appreciated that you've taken the time to review this article. Some of the points you've mentioned are things I absolutely need to fix, but with due respect, there are some other concerns you've mentioned that are not applicable. Addressing each bullet points one by one: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
  • It is good practice that the lead summarizes information in the article's body, not for presenting new information, because some readers will only read the article's lede. It is better to be redundant than to not give enough context/information for the reader.
  • Fixed, also split into two sentences to avoid awkward construction
  • No, this sentence does not violate NPOV. "Spiritual successor" means that the Mars Society conventions are a de facto continuation of the Case for Mars conferences, and this is mentioned in the source after the sentence: "The Case for Mars conferences, which continued every three years until the mid-1990s when the Mars Society was created (this advocacy organization now holds an annual conference), were essentially a resurrection of the “softening up” process that had been started by the space community during the 1950s.". Also, I've split the sentence into two for clarity.
  • Yes, my fault. Added a citation.
  • Axed "though"
  • I did not understand what you meant.
  • This is the most up to date source that I can find, which counts both self-published/independent sources. The Mars-Oz habitat was not mentioned in TMS's website and the last update I can find on a TMS affiliated website was 7 years ago.
  • Checking info...
@CactiStaccingCrane: Thanks for fixing all these. You are right about bullet 4; my bad on that one. For bullet 7, it's just that the unfortunately seems that the article is taking a side

I have approved for criteria 1a and 1b. Thanks for the excellently formatted list of citations, no issues detected by reFill. I have not found any original research, all statements are related to a source, thanks for that.

No issues detected by IABot or Copyvio detector

I have conducted random spot-checks throughout the article, and have not found any issues related to verifiability.

Article addresses main aspects of the topic and makes good use of summary style.

Checking the article's talk page and history tabs, there isn't any edit war going on, validating the stability criteria.

Article is written from a neutral point of view, validating that criteria too.

Appropriate media is used throughout the article, all of them appropriately tagged with relevant copyright tags.

This concludes my review!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 20:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Elon Musk at a Mars Society conference
Elon Musk at a Mars Society conference
  • ... that Elon Musk (pictured) was briefly a board member of the Mars Society before founding SpaceX? Source: Vance, Ashlee (2015). Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future. New York: HarperCollins. p. 99-100, 113. ISBN 978-0-06-230123-9. OCLC 881436803.
    Quote: "Musk’s first interactions with the aeronautics community were with an eclectic collection of space enthusiasts, members of a nonprofit group called the Mars Society. Dedicated to exploring and settling the Red Planet, the Mars Society planned to hold a fund-raiser in mid-2001" [...] "Musk took to the Mars Society right away and joined its board of directors. He donated another $100,000 to fund a research station in the desert as well." [...] "Founded in June 2002, Space Exploration Technologies came to life in humble settings."
    • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by CactiStaccingCrane (talk). Self-nominated at 12:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mars Society; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @CactiStaccingCrane: Newness passes as a recent GA. QPQ not needed. The source is cited but I'm just wondering if this really is the only interesting fact that can be gleaned from this article. Would be interested in potentially seeing some ALTs. The picture isn't the greatest but technically meets requirements. A different picture that might pair with an ALT might be interesting here as well. GA eligibility confirmed. Preference for Alt 1 and Alt 2, no pic to be used. Seddon talk 09:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Seddon talk 09:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT1: ... that the Mars Society's founding conference included a rancorous debate about the ethics of terraforming?
I think the Elon Musk photo violates WP:DYKIMG ("Try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article ") RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who offered ALT1 but I like it the best. Bruxton (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mars_Society&oldid=1225364809"