Wikipedia:Peer review/Terraforming/archive1

Terraforming

Well written in-depth article; listed at peer review as a first step towards FAC. siafu 17:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting article; it's a subject I've always found quite fascinating. Some of the elements of the article are more speculative than others—I'd like to see the speculative aspects have references. For example, the final paragraph in "History of scholarly study". In general the article needs lots of in-line references to back up the various assertions.

— RJH 21:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Biggest problems: There are no inline citations. Many images are marked with deprecated licensing tags. This article focuses too much on Mars and Venus as opposed to the general concept of terraforming. Random example of stuff that needs cleaning up: Mirrors made of extremely thin aluminized Mylar could be placed in orbit around Mars to increase the total insolation it receives. Sure, it could. Is this a widely accepted proposal? By whom? What are the alternatives? How else could this be acheived? Is it practical? Pagrashtak 23:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the mirrors proposal, the concern I would have is that they can be susceptible to displacement due to solar radiation, which would tend to knock them out of orbit. They'd need some type of compensating force to remain stationary, such as "tacking". Good catch. :) — RJH 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Place   "non-breaking spaces" between the values and the units so that they are not word-wrapped (separated) onto different lines. Get some inline citations in there, preferably in the m:Cite/Cite.php style (see Hugo Chavez for an example of how this system works). Since this seems like an interesting topic use the inline citations to point a reader to where they can further research a topic, "Cloud-top colonization", for example, (seriously) where can I go to read about that? Consider [1] for some online sources, like Fogg who has written several papers and this for an Iranian summary. I'm not sure of the validity of the "Popular culture" section...might want to stick that in the "See also" section. Avoid those one-sentence paragraphs (not a sign of brilliant prose), some of those can form the introduction sentence to a paragraph (like in "Converting atmosphere"), and others can be merged as a phrase in the previous paragraphs (like in "Paraterraforming"). --maclean25 16:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting and informative article. But it still needs some work. In addition to the most serious problem of missing inline references, I would like to point to the red links. Should they have place in a potential featured article? As for the structure, space devoted to two prominent cases (Mars and Venus) seems to be disproportionate to the discussion of the concept itself. The “Other worlds” section is very short, though I guess it would be quite difficult to expand it in a meaningful way. Moreover, the “Paraterraforming” section does not seem to be very well integrated in the article’s structure. The introduction also mentions political and economical issues, though they are not addressed in the article at all. Finally, it would be perhaps interesting to think a bit about possible consequences of the terraforming process for any local human population (for example colonists living in earlier built domes). Are the two concepts of colonization reconcilable?Tankred 10:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sort out the image situation. Photo credits can be done on the image page itself, rather than in captions. If possible, get the one with the credit in the image in white lettering out of it (if the creator was a Wikipedian). Put a summary of the pop culture in the article. Sorry I couldn't actually read the text in detail, look over it once more, get more references, maybe contact a WikiProject, and then submit this for a FAC.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, inline citations. Secondly, concentrate on more than just Venus and Mars - how about Europa (I'm sure I've read this somewhere) - the article should be about general principles, with specific examples in sub articles. Lose the commercial pictures and credits. For each of the red links create a stub article. Throwaway sentences like However, all these bodies come with conditions that make terraforming difficult to imagine. need to be expanded or removed. The popular culture section should have a paragraph (maybe the lead from the linked article) giving an overview. Its looking good though, keep up the work :) - FrancisTyers 11:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

'Popular culture' section is now nothing more then a section see also. Expand into a proper section. More inline citations wouldn't hurt, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)