Life edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a level 1 vital article. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it reach FA standards for comprehensiveness without getting overwhelmed in detail. (I.e. per WP:SS.) I've been working to get it fully referenced and polished up. It still has a few rough edges remaining, but what I'm really looking for is advice on where to take it as an article. Since I'm not a subject matter expert, knowledgeable input would also be very helpful.
Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Noleander
- Per your request, I'll focus mostly on comprehensiveness, not prose (I can do more prose if you'd like; just ask).
- [comment added later] BTW: the more I look at the article, the more apparent that a lot of work went into it: sourcing, photos, organization, word-smithing. Good job! Please don't take the following comments as any sort of disparagement.
- It would be good to have a section on "borderline/unconventional" organisms/processes which are in dispute. I'm thinking prions; gaia theory; viruses. Most interesting things happen on the border! You already have a section on viruses: maybe enlarge that to cover these "marginal" or "not uniformly agreed upon" life forms. Not sure what the best over-arching title would be. You already have a start in the Virus section & LivingSystems section: buy the should be consolidated (in my opinion) under a single "Borderline/unconventional" section.
- Extraterrestrial: consider adding a paragraph or subsection on possible life in the Solar System (Mars especially) .. the section seems to jump right to other stars, bypassing neighboring planets.
- non-carbon based: There has been lots of speculation about non-carbon based lifeforms (especially silicon-based) ... if any reliable sources touch on that, it is worth a mention. ... Ah, I see you have "Alternative hypothetical types of biochemistry have been proposed ...". Okay, but could you pick one particular alternative type (the most prominent one?) and mention it specifically? Readers absorb specifics better than generalities.
- Lead: terminology switches abruptly: a "process" is introduced in 1st paragr; then 2nd paragraph talks about a "living system" ... need to clarify/connect that transition.
- Range of tolerance: great section. I think readers would really benefit from a brief list of some of the enviroments inhabited by extremophiles: ocean vents, anaerobic, super-hot sulfur, etc etc: Concrete examples will paint a more vivid picture than current text.
- Cloning & Inventing life in the laboratory: Article should include a paragraph or section talking about the possibility of creating life de novo, in the laboratory? There are a couple of aspects of that (1) creating a new individual; or (2) creating a new species. The later is, of course, better covered in articles on genetic engineering but it is worth a mention in this article.
- Cells definitive?" - Form & Function section starts: "Cell theory propounds the concept that cells are the basic unit of structure in every living thing." - You need to decide if this article is going to limit itself to cell-based life or not. If viruses may be a form of life, then you'll need to avoid unqualified sentences like that. In other words, re-word it to something like "The vast majority of living organisms are comprised of cells; the only exceptions are viruses and perhaps prions. Cells are ..."
- Diversity: A new section that could really make this article top-notch would be "Diversity" or something like that. Describe 10 or 20 examples that occupy the extremes: a large mammal; a bacteria; airborne; ocean going; corals; jellyfish; spiders; moss; algae; etc etc.
- Photo gallery: I'm not a big fan of photo galleries, but this may be an article where they are warranted. You have a small gallery in the Materialism section. But see, for example, the photo montage in the mammal article. If not a gallery, at least scatter some more pics thru the article: each section should have at least one pic ... even if unrelated to that particular section.
- Phrasing: "Life as we know it today synthesizes proteins, ..." - "as we know it today" is a bit hackneyed. Just say "Life synthesizes...". It is understood that all declarative sentences in the article refer to life on earth "as known today" (with the exception of the ET section).
- Chart showing increase in #: It would be really useful to have a chart showing the number of species (vertical axis) vs time (horiz axis). Starts 3.x BYA, then increases rapidly in pre-cambrian era, etc. Perhaps use to accompany a "Diversity" section, showing how diversity has increased over time.
- Death vs. Extinction - It would not be off-topic to consider "Life" also in the generic sense of "existence of a species", so the Death section could perhaps include a subsection mentioning extinguishing a species as a particular kind of "end of life": ending all life-forms of a particular kind vs ending an individual.
- Multiple meanings of life: The lead has an excellent list of various key aspects of life: (1) biological system of an organism; (2) philosophy/religion; (3) soul/afterlife. Following up on the "Extinction" thought above, I'd recommend making more explicit the usage of "life" where it refers to a species or genus. Call this a "life form" ... there is no WP article on life form (that redirects to a list). Not to expand this article's scope too much, but perhaps include the notion that "life can also mean the collective organisms of one more related species" or something like that. So when one speaks of "life began X BYA" it is using that latter sense.
- Cladistics: "Since the 1960s a trend called cladistics has emerged, arranging taxa in an evolutionary or phylogenetic tree. It is unclear, should this be implemented, how the different codes will coexist" - A few points: (1) word "codes" is not used before, so this is confusing; (2) Cladistics are now absolutely the dominant method used for virtually all new classification work.; (3) The Linnean system of Kingdom/phylum/class etc is out-dated but still hanging around because it has so much momentum.
- Pics for Kingdoms/Cladistics: The article has two pics for Linnean classification: the vertical Domain/Phylum figure; and the horizontal table comparing Cavalier/Woese/ etc . Those are interesting, and important historically, but if you could have only one figure, I think most biologists would suggest something like File:Tree of life SVG.svg which is much more comprehensive and modern. The articles emphasis on Kingdoms is a bit out-dated .. they are more or less obsolete in modern taxonomy.
- SeeAlso topics: Some FAC veterans claim that one mark of a "comprehensive" article is that there cannot be any articles in the SeeAlso section, because any relevant article is already linked in the body. If you subscribe to that belief, then all the topics in the SeeAlso section are candidates for inclusion (or at least a brief mention) in the article. Glancing at the SeeAlso list, I find that that approach has some merit: I see at least 3 topics that I independently covered: Mars, Artificial/synthetic Life, non-cellular life.
- Definitions section: that section has lots of good material, but is a bit muddied. Specifically ".. other biological definitions of life have been proposed" - other than what? There was no prior definition, just a list of factors. Can the section be clarified? Try a top-down approach: Name 3 or 4 most prominent definitions. Then state that one of those is really a class of definitions, which test against a list of factors. Point out that there cannot be a simple litmus test. Also, (as mentioned above) convert the Virus section into "borderline/unconventional entities" that may or may not be alive (and make it a 3-equal-sign section, not 4.
- In conclusion: I think this is a really, really good article on a very, very difficult topic. If you ask 10 different editors what "life" is, you will get 10 different answers; so the question is: how to make the article comprehensive without getting overly broad? I think the article is very close to comprehensive already. Speaking as a fairly well-read person in a lot of areas, the omissions listed above are things I, personally, would like to see added, but I'm sure a professional biologist would have a different wish list :-)
- Let me know when you want a prose review, and I can do that.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)