|A fact from Mars appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 May 2009.|
I am slowly working through the simiplification of the main en:WP Mars article into simple English. Having tough time at times, but trying to flesh out and initial version of the complete article. If you see in the history of the article I am idle for a while (e.g. several hours), forge ahead if you want to continue simplifying things. Thanks :) --Mokhov 15:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I find that this page is far too simple - look at Mecury and Venus pages for examples. There is no real detail to this article.
- I added the description about the characteristics of Mars! Well yes, it is a bit simple...but it has a lot of good potential and effort inside it, and with the touch of a professional (I certainly am not in that class) in science, it could become a very good page in Simple Wiki. Classical Esther (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why does it link to "Template:Mars" instead of the article "Mars"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Due notice[change source]
There are some really glaring problems with this article. Obviously, some big changes are needed; here are some of the problems:
- Almost the whole article lacks reliable sources.
- Many of the scientific issues are simply not mentioned.
- The infobox is insanely long and complicated. Should we be showing a more complicated box than even English wiki?
- The whole of the section on the History of Mars is a disgraceful piece of POV rubbish. This is especially annoying as both the English wiki articles on Mars and Giovanni Schiaparelli give sane, referenced accounts. Also, see the featured article 'History of Mars observation': .
- I'm redoing the article at the moment. It's best to hold off comments for a while. The main aims are:
- to get some science in, with refs
- then to simplify it a bit
"During the 1877 opposition" - Why in the world does this article have this technical word? If the fact is important to the observations (I would see not, if the lines were scratches on the lens), then the word needs to be explained/replaced/linked.Kdammers (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you read the above, you'll see I ask editors to have some patience. On a run-through, I did not find the things you refer to (1877 0pposition and scratches on the lens). The original text did suggest the supposed sight of canals was caused by scratches on a lens, but that was an invention of an earlier editor. No reliable reference suggests this. As several people in different countries claimed to see canals, it could not be caused by a physical defect in a particular telescope. The phrase optical illusion refers to the psychology of the observer. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Removed flag[change source]
I've removed the complex flag, after careful reading. Considering the nature of the topic, this is not a complex page. Technical subject-matter is bound to have its own core of terms which are not simple but which are necessary. They are necessary because the content could not be expressed accurately without them. An encyclopedia has to be accurate. As wiki planets go, this is not complex. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)