Jump to content

Talk:Vitamin A/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hughesdarren (talk · contribs) 05:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Disclaimer: This is my first review, I'm not a subject expert but have a Science degree. This review is based on what I have read in Wikipedia:Good article criteria

The article is well written, but I have the following questions/suggestions:

In the lead section: Vitamin A occurs as two principal forms in foods: A) Retinols and B) Carotenoids ... the layout looks unusual, should each part start on a new line or be a bullet point?

Should there be a discussion of the differences between Vit A and retinol

Definition section: "up- or down-regulates", should this be simplified to regulates?

Absorption, metabolism and excretion section:

Could this have subsections for carnivores and humans (and maybe herbivores/omnivores - if it is different)? In the lead there is a mention of this but should it be spelled out for the layman reader?

Below actually under the Metabolic functions section:

Should Retinoic acid replace RA for this section?

  • RA established as abbreviation in first paragraph of Metabolic functions, and then text makes clear which eye functions are 11-cis-retinal mediated and which are retinoic acid.

Nightblindness subsection: Link to article on Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD)?

Xerophthalmia and childhood blindness subsection: What does IU mean? Actually this is covered later in the unit of measurement section.

Immune function: Maybe list some of this infectious diseases that VAD compromises the resistance of?

Animal requirements section: Do non-vertebrates require Vit A?

Synthesis section:

Do you think the image for Vitamin A biosynthesis from β-carotene should be larger?

Is there any other chemistry (reactions etc...) that could be included?

History section: The bit about WWII was so interesting, I was still a believer in that myth. Thanks for shattering that illusion.

tables of data - should they have a reference included in the table?

I believe I have addressed all of the above queries. Please let me know if any responses are incomplete, or if there is a second set of queries. David notMD (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review complete. All questions answered/resolved. Thanks for your candour and prompt replies. All good to go.Hughesdarren (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Clear and mostly easy to read. Have made some suggestions above. As a layman I felt I could follow each section. Spelling and grammar good with many links to jargon that was not readily understood
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Nicely broken up into logical sections, The lead gives a good overall understanding of the topic
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. A comprehensive list of sources, correctly formatted
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). Sources are mostly Scientific journals and Government websites
2c. it contains no original research. Text is supported by reliable sources
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Ran through Earwig copyvio detector and all OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Definitely, and then some. The history section was a big surprise and the medical section is thorough but very readable
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). All content directly related to topic
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Alot of content added between Dec 2021 and Feb 2022, but no content disputes or edit warring. Stable edit history before and since the expansion
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. All images used have copyright status tagged with file
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All images relevant topic with an appropriate caption
7. Overall assessment. Good to go, see discussion above.