Talk:Life/GA3

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: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 01:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Very interesting and obviously important. My first comments below. It might take me some time to complete this.

Thank you. I'm used to working with reviewers and will try to respond promptly to your comments. --Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• "self-sustaining" (first sentence of lead) links to an article about humans and organisations, not biological processes?
  • Removed.

• I am concerned about the section "Death".
  • I don't think "Fossils" belong in there. As you know, the possibly most common fossils are trace fossils, which are made by living animals; these do not have to do anything with death.
    • Agreed.
  • If we have a section about "Death", then, I think, we have to be consequent and also have sections on "Evolution" and "Life cycle". But then, I think, "Death" would be better discussed under "Life cycle" and "Extinction" and "Fossils" are better discussed under "Evolution".
    • Created "Development" chapter and put "Origin of life", "Fossils", and "Extinction" sections in there. Added "Evolution" section there.
    • We've said that reproduction is one of the basic traits of life; a section on "Life cycle" would be straying off-topic (down a rabbit-hole) here.
    • Moved "Death" to the "Definitions" chapter, as it just discusses definitions, and in the context of the definition of life, too, so it fits well.

• The section "Cells" does also not really fit into the article structure. You have a section "Origin", so maybe have a section "Composition" (or similar) next, that primarily discusses the cell? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Split existing "Composition" material into "Cells" and "Multicellular structure", and moved the "Chemical elements" and "DNA" subsections in their too, following the obvious logic.
  • I've updated the lead to reflect this reorganisation.

• especially after Buchner's – provide full name, as you do with other persons?
  • Done.
• summarized in TimeTree – I suggest to add "public database" to briefly explain what this is.
  • Done.
• Evolution is the change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations, resulting in the appearance of new species and the disappearance of old ones. – Not sure if genetic change usually really leads to disappearance of species.
  • Tweaked. Evolution often does lead to extinctions.
• more or less common within – This is ambiguous. I suggest "more common or less common within" to be extra clear.
  • Reworded.
• Life forms appear to thrive in the Mariana Trench, the deepest spot in the Earth's oceans. and the deepest parts of the ocean, – two redundant sentences
  • Fixed.
• Second paragraph of biosphere might fit better under "origin"?
  • Moved.
• selected microorganisms – selected by whom?
  • Reworded.
• While all organisms are composed of nearly identical molecules, evolution has enabled such microbes to cope with this wide range of physical and chemical conditions. This does not really say anything at al. Do we need it?
  • Gone.
• Microbial life forms thrive even in the Mariana Trench, the deepest spot in the Earth's oceans. Microbes also thrive inside rocks up to 1,900 feet (580 m) below the sea floor under 8,500 feet (2,600 m) of ocean – all mentioned already
  • Gone.
• Investigation of the tenacity and versatility of life on Earth, as well as an understanding of the molecular systems that some organisms utilise to survive such extremes, is important for the search for life beyond Earth. For example, lichen could survive for a month in a simulated Martian environment. – Seems more relevant under the heading "extraterrestrial"?
  • Moved.

• I am a bit slow on this, but will get to the rest soonish! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks!

• Copeland classified the Fungi in his Protoctista, thus partially avoiding the problem but acknowledging their special status – I suggest to provide the full name of Copeland (as you do with other persons), and explain "Protoctista" as otherwise it does not become not clear why the problem is avoided.
  • Done.
• As new discoveries enabled detailed study of cells and microorganisms – can we have something more specific than "discoveries"? Maybe Inventions? Technologies?
  • Done.
• united by Haeckel – full name, again.
  • Done.
• The most biologically abundant of these elements is carbon – I suggest "The most biological abundant element is"
  • Reworded.
• though most species of eukaryote are protist microorganisms. – Do we know this for sure? Only comparatively few protist species are described.
  • Reworded.
• a minor genetic change in a single molecule, called GK-PID, – can this be linked, or specified what kind of molecule it is?
  • Glossed and linked.
• Artificial life is the simulation of any aspect of life, as through computers, robotics, or biochemistry. – So this does comprise artificial neural networks, i.e., artificial intelligence? Is this worth mentioning?
  • Probably a bridge too far here. The "main" links give full details.
• This is all from me. Great work! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Drbogdan comments

FWIW - current version/20Sep2023 (here) seems a considerable improvement over earlier versions, culminating most recently/16Aug2023 (here) - Thank You for all your recent efforts with this very, very difficult challenge of course - nonetheless - for me at the moment, a more simple overall description of life continues to be preferred - life is a chemical (or matter) that can reproduce itself - this description seems to better cover all currently known life forms - as well as all those related chemicals not usually considered life forms for one reason or another - including "viruses", "viroids", "virusoids", "prions", "biochemcal precursors to life", etc, - the one single process common to all life forms seems to be reproduction - whether internally within itself, or externally outside itself with the help of a host (and/or catalyst?) of some sort - even after starting, life matter seems to continue reproducing at all life form levels witnin all life forms (cells reproduce, tissues reproduce, organs reproduce, etc) and reproduction, by itself as a process, seems to best distinquish life matter from non-life matter overall - in any case - my current thinking about all this at the moment - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for all your help with this - it's greatly, greatly appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Drbogdan. I note that the definition at the top of the article has stood for many years, after being extensively debated in the talk page archives. The article discusses the problematic status of viruses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Brief Followup - by coincidence, and seemingly consistent to some extent with my own published NYT comments re a simpler, and broader, description of life, very recent studies may be a related way of describing life matter in the universe that may not be carbon-based, or even Earth-based, but possibly viable nonetheless - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

References

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.