Wikipedia:Peer review/Abiogenesis/archive1

Abiogenesis

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article because I think it is quite good! It currently has a B rating, but I feel that it is a Good Article and could make it to FA sometime. So I'm trying to get more editor's opinions on the article and how it could be further improved. Of course by all means feel free to improve it personally!

I think if any parts have problems it is the sections, "Current Models" and "Other Models" as they are quite long, "Other models" seems redundant to "Current Models". A better title might be "Past Models"?

Also I feel that the article doesn't quite clearly address how complex chemical compounds, and therefore life, could have evolved specifically in light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I feel may be a weak point of the article. It is a commonly used argument by Creationists, and oddly, the word "Thermodynamic" only occurs once in the entire article, in different context. I've also started a section on the article talk page about this. I feel it is a major concern since the the Second Law states that all systems move in direction of greater entropy, but the entire topic of the article is how complex chemical systems evolved out of a primordial soup of inert chemicals.

Thanks, Pstanton (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RJHall comments – It seems like a decent article so far, but I think it may need some more work before it reaches featured article quality. Here are a few notes that I hope are of some use:

• I think the lead needs a re-write. It needs to comply with WP:LEAD and the writing could be tightened up. It does not mention the contents of many of the sections, such as "History of the concept in science".
• Overall I think the sectioning needs work. In particular, about half way down there are too many short sections. See: Wikipedia:Layout#Headings_and_sections.
• "Until the early 19th century people generally believed in ... abiogenesis." This seems like an over-generalization. The provided citation only appears to lists classical or Christian philosophers. Is it true of the rest of the world?
• "The subsequent discovery of microorganisms seemed to strengthen the spontaneous generation camp." Cite this opinion please. Also cites are needed for the last two paragraphs in the same section.
• In "Haldane and Oparin: The Primordial Soup Theory", a paragraph break or two would be welcome.
• The text should explain what a "concentration of ... about -5.5" means. Is this a logarithm?
• Based on the wording in the first paragraph of "Current models", the list seems like it is on really shaky ground. Is the list cherry-picked and cobbled together, or is it the opinion of some distinguished individuals or group? This entire section is decidedly in need of verification. Also, why doesn't the "Proteins first" model receive equal coverage with "Nucleic acids first"?
• The text in the "Origin of organic molecules" section can be consolidated into prose.
• "...conditions found in the early earth had changed..." Is this earth as in dirt, or Earth the planet? The article is inconsistent in its use of Earth or earth.
• "A new article in Discover Magazine points..." is time dependent. It would be better not to mention the article at all (leaving it as a cite), and instead just discuss the research.
• Overall there is a need for more citations. See especially those paragraphs and sections with none whatsoever.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)