Talk:Red yeast rice/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 22:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I will be taking a look at this article. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This review is based upon this version of the article as it appeared on 13 June 2019

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are definitely portions of the article where it flows better than others. The prose quality in certain sections needs improvement. Try reading the first paragraph of "clinical evidence" out loud, for example. It feels like certain words were dropped from each sentence that make me have to re-read it to figure out what it is saying, or whether it was cut-and-pasted from a different source, or translated from a different source. I am unable to tell that, however, since much of that paragraph is uncited. The third and fourth sentence of that paragraph appear to be sourced from Gerards, et al, and they appear closely paraphrased from that paper. Unreferenced sentence removed from first paragraph, as was original research; rest is referenced to Gerards and Peng. There is some questionable capitalization in the article, i.e. "Warning Letter", and some questionable use of [...], like "the quantity of monacolin K varied from none to prescription strength [...]"[17] as though some additional text from that quote had previously been included, but later removed. FDA capitalizes Warning Letter. The ellipses removed. Here's another example of awkward prose and punctuation, from the second paragraph of the clinical evidence section: "Within the first review,[20] the largest and longest duration trial was conducted in China: the China Coronary Secondary Prevention Study (CCSPS)." Colons shouldn't be used like that, and there were a couple of more places where I noticed that. Second and third paragraphs of Clinical evidence merged and the colon and name of the China study deleted. Generally, try to break up and re-word some of the really long sentences that appear, especially late in the article, to make them easier to read and understand. Safety section split into two paragraphs. Run-on sentences split. Removed description of evidence from an individual clinical trial (primary research). The production section reads like a how-to guide rather than an encyclopedia article. Shortened, so less how-to detail.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section of the article contains uncited information that is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, or is contradicted in parts of the article. For example, the fist paragraph of the second paragraph mentions that the food preparation tradition goes back to 300 BC, but no mention of that date is given in the "culinary" subsection of the "uses" section. Culinary text now incorporates and references early documentation from Japan and China, resolving the date conflict. The lead section also does not effectively summarize the article. It doesn't even mention the medical benefits ascribed to the product, yet 1,250 of the article's 1,550 non-lead-section words are about the medical uses. Medicinal use paragraph added to Lead. A 1-sentence paragraph appears at the end of the article and looks out of place. One sentence paragraph merged to preceding paragraph (other option is to delete).
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	In the traditional Chinese medicine section, there is a date of 800 AD for medicinal use. There is no citation given for that fact. The 800 AD mention deleted. The next sentence in this article refers to the Erdoğrul (misspelled in this article as Erdogrull) and Azirak paper from the Turkish Electronic Journal of Biotechnology paper, so I looked at that. It gives a date of the first century A.D. in the "Historical and traditional use of Monascus purpureus" section (p.37). That paper (p. 38) contains the sentence "Interestingly, red yeast rice is also mentioned in an ancient Chinese pharmacopoeia of medicinal foods and herbs, the Ben Cao Gang Mu of Li Shi-zhen, where it is described as a medication useful for improving digestion and revitalizing the blood (Heber et al. 1999)" but it is used as a citation in this article for the sentence "It is taken internally to invigorate the body, aid in digestion, and revitalize the blood." Although that paper lists a number of wildly optimistic health benefits of red yeast rice that I won't try to list here, "invogorate the body" isn't one of them. "Invigorate the body" deleted. Generally, after the reference spot-checking I performed, and I stopped after a few, I'm not convinced that all of the claims in the article are adequately referenced. Refs added or text removed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Reference #1 (Shurtleff) is a 660-page book. If you are using it as a reference, you'll need to include a page number where you found that fact. Reference #2 (Starling) is a company press release. Reference 5 (Hu) needs a page number. Working on Shurtleff. Starling is an article in NUTRA Ingredients, a reputable trade magazine. The text it references is about non-Chinese companies entering the RYR market. The ref supports that. For Hu, have sent a query to the author through ResearchGate to get the page numbers. No rely at ResearchGate; unlikely to get page number by any other means. Take your time. If you don't get a response about the Hu reference, is there another reference that can act as an equivalent substitute? Replaced Hu with Song 2019.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are uncited sections but nothing that jumps out as original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Most significant instances plagiarism are actually other sites copying the Wikipedia article, as far as I have found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Although multiple uses of red yeast rice are mentioned in the article, it is heavily weighted toward the medical supplement side, with only passing mention of other uses. Culinary and TCM sections being revised. There will not be much added. RYR as food color has been to large degree replaced by synthetic color chemicals. One ref removed because it described TCM documents, but the text of the ref had no specific mention of RYR.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is unbalanced, but I don't mind the in-depth coverage of the medical uses of the product as long as the other uses are covered to as full an extent.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	A lot of the medical uses of the product is covered, but it doesn't cross the line too far into the "OMG you need to try this!" arena.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable and there are no apparent content disputes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One image, tagged with CC BY-SA, located on Wikimedia Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image is appropriate and effectively illustrates the subject matter of the article. Caption on the photo is poor. Caption revised The revised caption is a major improvement.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article does not meet all of the GA criteria at this point, as noted above.

Other notes: in the "safety" section, the article has "Ingredient suppliers have also been suspected of "spiking" red yeast rice preparations with purified lovastatin. As evidence, one published analysis reported several commercial products as being almost entirely monacolin K - which would occur if the drug lovastatin was added - rather than the expected composition of many monacolin compounds.". Why would they do that? Would be it cheaper to include synthesized pharmaceuticals rather than natural red yeast rice? I was left confused by that, but there's no approprate GA criteria category to put that question under. Yes, cheaper to add synthetic monacolin K to a red yeast rice product made with a yeast M purpureus strain that has no natural monacolins content (proper use as a food coloring agent) than to use the bioactive strain. "Spiking" of dietary supplements with drugs is a common problem with supplement ingredients sourced from China. Following up on this (doesn't affect the GA status, and you don't even need to answer). Why? Is the M purpureus strain that produces natural monacolins harder to obtain, harder to propagate, more time consuming to actually produce the monacolins than it is to produce the coloration that simulates the real deal? Might be a good point to include in the article, if you know (I don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer). RecycledPixels (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I will leave this open for now in case you want to dive into improving the article starting with what I've listed, but if you don't have the time, I can close it and you can re-nominate it later. I'm aware of how long the GA backlog is, however, so I don't mind putting it on hold. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not close it. This GA nomination has been waiting for a reviewer for a very long time. I will tackle all the review comments as fast as I can. David notMD (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It can stay open as long as you need, please leave me a note when you want me to do a re-reading. The examples I listed in the areas to be improved were intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive, so if you tell me you are ready for me to re-read the article, I hope you will not assume that once you clear up the items I have specifically identified, that I would think the article is ready. I am watching this page as well as the article page and I can see the improvements you are making to the article, but am not adding or revising any of my comments until you tell me you are ready for me to come back and take another look. I'm willing to work on this article in my role as long as you are in your role- it's a good subject matter that I find interesting. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Second review

This second review is based upon this version of the article as it appears on 15 August 2019. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article has improved a lot during your recent rewriting efforts. There were a few sections that I thought needed cleanup and clarification, but after going through everything, I decided that the changes were minor and nit-picky enough that it would be ok if I just made some changes myself without making myself ineligible as a reviewer. The GA criteria for prose merely calls for clear and concise, with correct spelling and grammar. The article meets that standard, but can still be improved in places in order to meet the "engaging and professional standard" prose called for under featured article standards.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The third paragraph of the lead paragraph reads a bit choppy, but is is understandable. Rewriting the passive voice into active voice may improve readability. Cleaned up one WP:ENGVAR inconsistency. No longer any issues with items being mentioned in the lead but not the body of the article. If I was going to nitpick a bit more, I'd suggest revising the first couple of sentences of the lead so that the very most important aspects of the article are included, so those facts can show up in the quick summary that a reader receives when they hover over a wikilink.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Referencing is improved and facts can easily be traced to their sources.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I still have a bit of concern about the page numbers in Shurtleff, but the facts that it is supporting are so unlikely to be challenged that I'm not going to hold this up over that.
	2c. it contains no original research.	As before, nothing jumps out as original research and the article is still well-referenced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Still does not have copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Broad in scope.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article stays focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Revisions still have not crossed into the realm of advocating the benefits of the product, and contain a balance between the claimed benefits and the claimed risks by each party.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	It has not changed while you were patiently waiting for me to come back.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One image, tagged with CC BY-SA, located on Wikimedia Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Caption is improved
	7. Overall assessment.	Looks good. Thank you for your patience and all of your hard work.

Note: I have ended up needing to deal with several real-life issues that I had not anticipated when starting this review, and that looks like it will continue for at least the next several weeks and it has meant that the amount of time I have available to contribute here is severely limited. I have requested a second opinion in case someone else is free and can take over for me, but my current situation means it is unlikely I can give this article the attention it deserves at the moment. If nobody else has been able to pick it up in the time between now and when I come back, I will of course resume the review. I apologize for the unanticipated delay. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am back from the real world and am ready to undertake this review. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)