Talk:Geodynamics of Venus

Feedback from Nicki (Development of the Terrestrial Planets)

Round 2:

1. I think your introduction has drastically improved! I really like the box to the right. It really helps the reader to understand what the characteristics of Venus are. I think you left out the max temperature in the box, though. You might also want to spell out "temp." The introduction has a lot of detail, which is really good, and definitely provides an overview for the reader. However, there may be too many unfamiliar words and processes for the average reader to understand. For example, you state that the impact craters determined the age of the surface. You may want to provide an explanation as to why crater counting can be used to determine the age of the surface.
2. I'm not sure of the optimal method to fix this, but I feel like you have a lot of in-text citations of author (year). I don't think is common on other Wiki pages, so you may want to limit your use of this.
3. Original Figure: It's a bit difficult to read most of the words, and the ones in white can't be read at all. If this figure was modified from Ivanov and Head 2008 (which it appeared to be when I looked at the paper), you should include something like "modified from Ivanov and Head 2008" in the how section of the uploading image form.
4. Episodic Behavior Figure: This is directly from a scientific paper and uncited (when you click the actual figure). Figures from scientific papers are not allowed to be uploaded to Wikipedia since they are copyrighted. You can possibly slightly change the figure and consider it a modification, but I think that Wikipedia doesn't even allow this. At the moment, you should remove the figure until you have addressed the issue and are confident that you're not breaking any copyright. (I had this issue in the first draft. I'd suggest contacting our class ambassador or someone else who is very familiar with Wiki if you have trouble knowing what images you can upload.)
5. The theories are really well described, but I still feel like they are written at a level too advanced for Wikipedia. In order to fix, you could add internal Wiki citations, as well as more descriptions about these processes.

Other little notes:

1. First sentence says "500 +/- 200 Ma (million years)". I think you can eliminate the "(million years)". I noticed that other Wiki pages do not contain this unit clarification. Double check to see if Mya (million years ago) is more appropriate than Ma.
2. Your first citation should be [1] instead of the [4] (first sentence). Wiki is supposed to order the refs, so I'm not sure how these got out of order. And make sure no space between the period and the citation (ex. other sentences in the first introduction besides the first sentence).
3. The contents is broken up into 1 section with 4 subsections. It might look a bit more tidy if there was a way to make this into 2 distinct sections or just have 4 sections.

Your Wikipedia is really good! There is so much detail and provides the reader a great overview of the theories. You also cite a lot of scientific articles to back these theories and other details. The main fix is just providing some explanations for the non-geologists. (I wasn't a geologist before grad school, so I had a bit of trouble following your page.) Other than that, great! - Nicki

Round 1: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicki Button (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Hi John, I think your page is off to a great start. It's exciting to see something about Venus when the number of pages out there can be limiting. Your introduction provides a really good foundation for the rest of the article. Here are some possible improvements: (1) The introduction, specifically the first sentence, provides a lot of numbers. This may be better displayed in a box to the right (such as on the Wiki page: Venus, but only information relevant to your article) as compared to one all in one sentence. (2) The first model, Episodic Tectonic Models, would be stronger with citations and linking to other Wiki pages and/or external websites. (3) "Here is a list of models and theories that suggest various internal compositions and resurfacing mechanisms on the planet." could be removed and instead within each model description state which model is the most accepted (as well as least accepted and why). Great so far! You've included a lot of detail in what you've written. - Nicki Button

Hey Tyler,

Nice job with the page so far. You have a great introduction, but I do agree with Nicki when it comes to the large amount of statistics listed. I also like the information box at the end of the page. I did a presentation in structure about "blob tectonics" on Venus which may give you another model or help expand on another one (not sure if blob tectonics is called something else these days). A great original figure could be one that shows a simple diagram of the two geodynamic models. Good luck! Melissausburn (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

For Wikipedia articles we like to start with one sentence that describes the topic, possibly with a definition or key fact. We really do need references for each paragraph. Also I am looking forward to the second model, and the pictures you may draw. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Geodynamic Models for Venus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Geodynamic Models for Venus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nssdc":

• From Venus: Williams, David R. (15 April 2005). "Venus Fact Sheet". NASA. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
• From Phases of Venus: Williams, David R. (April 15, 2005). "Venus Fact Sheet". NASA. Retrieved 2007-10-12.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Needs context and clearer introduction

The lead should clearly provide context for people unfamiliar with the topic, and offer a summary of the article rather than being purely introductory. One should not assume that the reader knows what a geodynamic model is, nor anything about the Soviet Venera landing. Despite the title, the lead makes me think this will be about the Geology of Venus. I recommend a rewrite of the lead to clearly, unambiguously introduce the topic, keeping technical terms minimized and fully explained within the body. Always keep in mind WP:MTAU. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Quotations not indicated

This article quotes extensively from at least one source (ref. # 10) without indicating that it does so. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Cytherodynamics" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cytherodynamics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14 § Cytherodynamics until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The decision to delete seems unarguable. Google finds zero mentions of this word. Zaslav (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Not uniformitarian

Geodynamics_of_Venus#Resurfacing_hypotheses says "This is effectively a uniformitarian hypothesis as it assumes that geologic activity is occurring everywhere at similar rates." That is not what uniformitarianism means. It means activity is uniform over time; that is the whole point of the historical debate over terrestrial uniformitarianism. I suggest this sentence or at least the reference to uniformitarianism be removed. Zaslav (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)