Talk:The Vital Question

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Vital Question/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 22:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

• "though in his view much of it was speculative beyond the evidence provided" is he the reviewer or Lane?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed.

• "He won the Michael Faraday Prize in 2016" why is this in the context section if his book was published before he got the award?

• Well, it's context about Lane, building up a picture of what sort of person he is, which is relevant to the book.

I would imagine he only received the award because of this book since it's awarded for "excellence in communicating science to UK audiences"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved the sentence to 'Reception'.

If you wanna give him backstory, you can mention his other books and the awards he received for those   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure we need to go further in that direction, the context section says what's needed now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You could at least include author or science writer as one of his titles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think the section should introduce theories related to the topic which Lane specifically argues against, like the warm little pond   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Good idea. I've added a paragraph of context on that.

• "relying on a large voltage drop across the very small thickness of a cell membrane – to power all the chemical reactions of life. The dangerous electrical energy is transformed into forms that the cell can use by a chain of energy-handling structures built into the membrane" this is a pretty vague explanation. It looks like you're trying to talk about ion channels but I'm lost at "dangerous electrical energy". It'd be much better if you spend more time going over basic cell bio   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded. This certainly isn't the place to go over cell biology, but I've named and linked some key membrane structures to give readers a clue where to look next.

• "Once cells similar to bacteria (without a nucleus) had emerged" you don't have to avoid the word prokaryote   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Fair enough, done.

• "and complex behavioural features including sex, which he notes is found in all complex (eukaryotic) life forms" this makes it sound like there are no asexual eukaryotes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tweaked.

• Is he the first person to posit hydrothermal vents?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• No, that was Günter Wächtershäuser. Edited and reffed.

• You're dropped your footnotes in the Synopsis section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• In book articles it's normal not to provide footnotes as the book itself is the source, but I've added some for you.

Yeah at first it was fine but then you included Wachtershauser in the middle so it may be a bit confusing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Well it's fully-cited now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand why you give a giant paragraph about Requarth's summary of the book. How is this relevant to reception? It doesn't add anything beyond what was already said Synopsis besides adjectives Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Trimmed.

• Why is Peter Forbes the only person with occupation listed? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Removed.

Drive-by comments

Hi, I saw this was being reviewed; I hope you don't mind if I toss in a few unofficial comments of my own.

Where you say (Synopsis), "relying on a large voltage drop across the very small thickness of a cell membrane". This left me wondering which membrane, and it wasn't until I got later into the article that it became clear that it was different membranes in eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Maybe you don't need to say all that up front, but I think you should at least foreshadow that it's not always the same membrane. Also, my formal training in electrical engineering makes me think "large voltage drop" means like kvolts, which is obviously absurd in a cell. And "voltage drop" makes me think more about ohmic losses due to constant current flow, which isn't really what's going on here either. So, how about, "...relying on a relatively large potential difference across one of two kinds of membrane"?

Thanks, but that isn't it either. I've said "a steep electrochemical gradient"; it's steep because the distance is so small.

Yeah, that's perfect.

I'm also not a fan of short declarative sentences; they make the text choppy. Instead of The book was well received by critics. The New York Times found it "seductive and often convincing"[1]..., splice those together as The book was well received by critics; the New York Times, for example, found it "seductive and often convincing"[1] ... Likewise with Nick Lane is a biochemist at University College London. He researches... which I think would read better as Nick Lane is a biochemist at University College London who researches....

Spliced.

Charles Darwin had speculated that life might have begun in some "warm little pond", but Lane shows this could not have happened, the "shows this could not have happened" makes it sound like an absolute proof. I think you want something like, "argues that", or "attempts to show that".

Tweaked.

I don't think "turbinelike" is a word. "turbine-like" maybe?

Done.

As a technical issue, don't use a WorldCat search as a reference. Write is as a standard "cite book" template. Including the ISBN anD OCLC numbers will allow anybody to locate it.

Noted, but the claim here is that there are many, which would take many separate citations. (Indeed the "at least" claim is best answered as it is.)

Hmmm, I see your point, but I'm still not comfortable with what's essentially a database search as a reference in a GA. But, I've said my piece on that, so I'll leave it to you.

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: also Turkish :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Reffed. That's the reason for the "at least"... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, that's just a few things I noticed. Do with them what you will. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both for the helpful comments, which I've actioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 - are you back from the holidays? I think this one is pretty much complete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

sorry I forgot about this Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I've replied to your queries above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)