Wikipedia:Peer review/Life/archive3
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it reach GA and eventually FA. I have been working to improve the article and would like to know what the community thinks need to be done before i nominate the article to GA.
Thanks, MartinZ02 (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by UN
[edit]Appreciate your interest in this. Even giving a decent PR is going to be tough.
- Structure: As mentioned before in the GA review, I too find the present structure confusing. Keep watching this point till I can think of a better way to organise it.
- I'm seeing a lot of small sections having the main article links. Per WP:DETAIL, that would imply that we have to expand those sections, making it likely be out of scope. See below. This is probably a controversial change and cannot be done in one go without first making sure the content flows smoothly. Also it would be nice if the other article contributors could pitch in here.
- Definitions
- Biology
- Alternative definitions
- (Viruses could just be another para here, instead of having its own section. DETAIL.)
- Biophysics
- Living system Theories: (what are Living system theories? This section goes straight to the examples without introducing the term.)
- (Each definition could well be in embedded list form like how it's for the main Biological definitions. The sections are too small to be there, again DETAIL.)
- Biology
- History of study
- Materialism
- Hylomorphism
- Spontaneous generation
- Vitalism
- Origin
- Cells: (move this here for better context)
- Environmental conditions: (same here)
- Range of tolerance
- Extremophiles
- Chemical elements
- Classification
- Other: (perhaps an intro for this?)
- Extraterrestrial life
- Artificial life
- Death: (Again, I don't see why there should be sections for Fossils and Extinction, they are a bit out of scope). Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Since this isn't titled Life (biology), any reason why the non-scientific viewpoints aren't mentioned? Is it covered in Phenomenological life?
- Size: getting 37 kb, that's low enough, looks like there is lot of room for expansion, given that this topic mostly will be summarising other articles. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)