Talk:Cytidine diphosphate

	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 has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Chemicals Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 378

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): W1i2k3i4p5e6d (article contribs). Peer reviewers: UTK443.

— Assignment last updated by UTK443 (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a decent introduction, and it is concise. Its content is up-to-date and relevant to the topic, but it is scarce and should be enlarged. This article does not deal with underrepresented populations/topics. The article is not biased, and it doesn't overly-emphasize any particular point since there are less than a handful in total and each is briefly discussed. There are no spelling or grammatical errors. The article includes relevant and properly-cited images that aid the reader's understanding of the topics presented. The Talk Page has only one comment, from 2007, so it is not relevant (the comment was of no significance). My overall impressions of the article are that it is well-made with no apparent mistakes or "red flags" that violate Wikipedia's standards and guidelines, but it is simply too short and lacks information that ought to be added. W1i2k3i4p5e6d (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]