Talk:Northeast Syrtis

2nd Reflection

I think the updated version including more information of this landing sites, but the organization is a little messy. As well, I should focus on the observations of this region instead of many interpretations derived from original researchs, proving more clean, verifiability and effective information to the people who are not familiar with this topic. In my eye, I consider Northeast Syrtis should be the final landing site of Mars 2020 mission. I ought to provide neutral point of view to this landing site even I am frustrated of hearing the News Northeast Syrtis was cut by NASA this morning.

Reflection

• The figures are not enough to illustrate the content this topic clearly. I should add more figures to show more information I mentioned in the text.
• The section of stratigraphy should include more information, like the hypotheses I mentioned below.
• The significance of this landing site and potential outcomes should be well illustrated.
• The latest conferences 4th Mars 2020 landing sites held on Oct 16-18, 2018, much new information should be updated.

Peer Feedback from Ivan

Hi Justin! These are some suggestions for your article:

• The location may not be well-defined. The size of the map is great but you could add more information to enrich it (latitude/longtitude marks, N/S pole in the general Mars view, scale etc.). you may try to adopt a location template like Jezero Crater or Isidis Planitia did. You should also cite the location in the text.
• The table of testable hypotheses would involve plagiarism. Rearranging the order from Bramble (2017) is equal to taken directly rather than modification. Instead, you could summarise the result of Bramble (2017) and describe and elaborate the feature. Images from satellite could help as well.
• You could explain more on the importance of this place and features related to Mars 2020 mission.
• Some parts missed citation. You should cite the original stratigraphic column in the illustration, area of TRN ellipse (or eclipse?), sulphate formation on Mars in the introduction.

Cheers,
Ivancyyip (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Feedback from George

Couple things that came to mind:

• better organisational structure of the stratigraphy section could provide more clarification of the information
• further to the stratigraphy, a broader geologic overview of mars with a comparison to the landing site could compliment this section
• explanations on the importance and outcomes of testing the proposed hypothesis?

Peer review from Kevin

Hi Justin,

Suggestions:

1. By just looking at the first image is a bit confusing to me. Putting an image showing the satellite image of Mars and the location of NE Syrtis prior to this geophysical map might introduce its location more clearly.

2. In terms of structure, Mars 2020 mission might be put ahead of stratigraphy for a more logical flow since this part tells why everything (including the selection of landing site) is done.

3. It would be more interesting if some geophysical survey data are added to support the features and process observed in the table of “Testable Hypotheses of Northeastern Syrtis”.

4. The table of “Testable Hypotheses of Northeastern Syrtis” might be cited in a more detailed way (if possible).

Regards, Kevin Kevnmh (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Harriet

• Your page is has a lot of good images.
• your introduction is well linked but your later sections only have very few.
• some phrases are a bit too technical.

"(1) Isidis-formed melt within Noachian basement, (2) regional olivine-rich unit, (3) dark-toned magic cap rock, (4) Syrtis lava" this is not linked nor explained. Generalist readers may not understand what are they. You may consider explaining some frequently used terms in your paragraph.

• your figures are well annotated in your captions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarrietHKUGeology (talk • contribs) 05:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from George

- the stratigraphic section used is a good representation but the use of a scale and details of the contacts would be useful. further to this, comparative stratigraphic sections of other regions could help highlight why this site is best

- there use of links to specific wiki pages decreases down the page. in some cases it may be useful to give a brief description of terms, for example the nature of minerals described in the within the regional geology

- sometimes the writing hints at a personal take on the topic which is unlike wikipedia articles. try keep the the phrasing as straight information

- the first two paragraphs of the 'mesa unit' section contain no citations ?

- all the information is very clear and accessible, nice page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgealee (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)