This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Coenzyme Q10 is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Was trying to learn about CoQ10 and found a nonsensical link in the Statin section. Fixed it and replaced it with a relevant link to a trustworthy source. But then I found another peculiarity in the Statin Myopathy section. The word purported is used to preface "muscle-related side effects of statin medications". Why is Wikipedia judging the reality of disease symptoms? Is there a recognized malady of people imagining side effects of statins in particular? I see no justification from a reliable source for the use of the judgmental word 'purported' and suggest that it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowsetfree (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Artoria2e5! You asked on September 2022 to add missing information on biological function of CoQ10, mentioning that the biological role weighted too low compared to dietary features, and that the section on biological function need a section with links to Q cycle and Complex III at minimum. I rearranged the article to put more weight on biological function and less weight on CoQ10 as a dietary supplement. I also changed the lead section accordingly, and made a new section: biological function. Could you please let me know whether the new look of the article addresses your concerns that you raised in 2020? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a degree in biology or medicine, but have a degree in cybersecurity, therefore, my understanding of the biological function of CoQ10 might have been incorrect, I still could not fully understand involvement of CoQ10 in the mitochondrial processes. So I might have omitted something important details, or gave undue weight and details to less important details, or my interpretation was somehow wrong, therefore, could you please thoroughly review the text, and probably also invite somebody familiar with the matter to double-review. I will put a maintenance banner inviting the capable person such as you or somebody you could attract, thank you! If after the review it is OK, please remove the banner. If you find something wrong, please edit, because I would unlikely be helpful in the matters which I don't fully understood. I have black belt, first dan in alternative pathways of androgen biosynthesis, but not in mitochondrial processes involving energy transfer via ATP; mitochondria also participate in steroidogenesis, but these are different processes. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't impress as a point requiring emphasis, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It has not been thoroughly studied, is supported only by questionable MDPI sources (Antioxidants, Nutrients), and is not assessed in the LPI review.
When you add a source using [cite journal|doi=], rather than leaving the sources broken as in this edit, you could run Citation bot to complete the source details solved by a single click like this. See Citation expander, which gets listed under Tools in the left margin of your edit page as "Expand citations". Zefr (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As about the DOI: I am sorry that I created a broken references. I was doing exactly how you described, intending to run the citation bot immediately, but forgot to ensure that the citation bot completed successfully.
As for the bioavailability: I didn't insist on any particular point of view or particular health claim, and I agree with your concerns about MDPI. I wanted to ensure clarity, so that if we write about bioavailability, we should be explicit on weather it is about bioavailability from food or bioavailability from pharmacological substance such as a medication or a supplement. When I started editing this article, it was not clear. I therefore made edits to emphasize that the information on bioavailability was relating to pharmacological substance, not to food. You then edited and removed this emphasis in one place (subsection header), so I asked you to take care of being explicit. Wikipedia does not have to be vague, we are not politicians or laywers, we write encyclopedia. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I split "Uses" section (that had subsections) into three flat sections: "Dietary supplement", "Regulation and composition" and "Research directions". I also added some text on current state of research; still, most of the text from Uses came to "Research directions". Your feedback is appreciated. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
