Talk:Mars Society/GA2

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

GA review

Last updated: 14:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC) by Cocobb8

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:

@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)

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)

• 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.