Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDeath was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
January 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 5, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
March 24, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Death inevitable?[edit]

@FishandChipper Was wondering if you can name an organism that contradicts the first sentence in the lead? I am happy to know that I am wrong, but I do wonder if requiring a citation for this statement is a bit much (falling into Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE territory). Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 17:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biological immortality is the page you're looking for. Apparantly some organisms just cannot die without outside influence. Now I'm no biologist but i think that at least the line should be changed to most rather than all just to account for these organisms. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know there are some jellyfish and microorganisms that can live indefinitely, but indefinite does not equate to infinite. The disputed statement suggests that all organisms will eventually die, which is what is observed in practice. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 18:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“Almost all” is incorrect, right?[edit]

Some organisms may be able to live forever if the conditions they are in remain unchanged for that period of time, but every organism will eventually die. I feel like “almost all” implies that some organisms will be immortal and survive for an infinite amount of time. FinnSoThin (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wondering if there is a better source for the second to last line about bringing dead organisms back to life. Also I’m not sure if the comment about science fiction is completely relevant. Abbiers (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Abbiers (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree a lot with the second sentence, so I removed it. G-Toasty (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 17:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lets get this review done.


There are a lot of sources missing
  • This is difficult due to there being little consensus on how to define life.
  • .. of life support devices, organ transplants, and artificial pacemakers.
  • Even by whole-brain criteria, the determination of brain death can be complicated.

I have concerns about a few sources as well
  • Encyclopedia Brittanica and are WP:Tertiary sources, not the worst thing but does need justification
  • Multiple sources have clean-up tags


  • Earwig is clear, will do spot checks when I get to it


  • The human skull is used universally as a symbol of death. not cited in the body
  • A flower, a skull and an hourglass stand for life not cited
  • In general, please cite images if the information isn't obvious/up to interpretation. Art is very subjective and a few of these captions are getting close to 'close paraphrasing'.


  • Lead as a whole needs to be tightened up. Death is a level 2 vital article and there shouldn't be 2-3 sentence paragraphs for such an important topic
  • WP:LEADCITE remove the repetitive citations from the lead, this isn't a major issue but should be pointed out
  • There are a large number of articles that can be linked under a 'see main article' template. e.g. Brain Death, Grief, etc. The templates are inconsistent.
  • "Problems of definition" change to just 'definition'
  • The concept of death is a key to human understanding of the phenomenon. what does this mean?
    • This subsection is largely unnecessary, the definition sections should be merged together. Especially since some of the headers take a less than encyclopedic tone.
  • development of CPR and prompt defibrillation have rendered that definition inadequate because breathing and heartbeat can sometimes be restarted appears to be WP:OR, the source is an army manual on how to do CPR
  • Please review WP:WEASEL, a lot of weasel words
  • so the volcano can be considered to be dead This is WP:OR and really stretching the concept of 'dead'. The term is 'extinct' and if you want to go down the road of anthropomorphising everything, you'll need a whole other article.

Yah, I'm gonna call it here. The page need serious work, there are citations missing, the prose needs work, and the sections should be merged and expanded upon. I see you've made a couple of attempted to promote vital articles. I applaud the tenacity but recommend that you start on smaller articles and learn the ropes first. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.