Wikipedia:Peer review/Vitamin C/archive1

Vitamin C

Hi, I recently obtained GA status for this article, and hoping for FA, with this being a logical step along the way.

I'm looking for a review on scientific verifiability, particularly from experts in the areas of biochemistry, etiology, and genetics. Also, any suggestions the community could make on reference formatting and prose would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance — Jack · talk · 06:50, Tuesday, 13 March 2007

• If you're looking for expert feedback, you might try WP:SPR. I think it's semi-active. -- bcasterline • talk 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've now nominated it there, thanks or the heads-up. If there's anything that you could suggest here about prose, or other general improvements, that'd still be ace :) — Jack · talk · 11:36, Wednesday, 14 March 2007

• Firstly all the bullet points need to be either incorperated into prose or into tables. Secondly the article really needs overall tightening, as several points are repeated in various sections. It actually needs to be reorganized entirely. "History" should rather be something like "History of human consumption" or something, as you hardly give the evolutionary history of Vitamin C in that section. Then you can move the "Daily dosage requirements" under that etc. Also see if there any non-dietary uses of Vitamin C worth mentioning (preservitive, etc.)--BirgitteSB 20:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've moved history up, and converted a whole bunch of bullets to prose. There are non-dietary uses of the vitamin, and they're mentioned in the third paragraph of the intro. I can totally see what you mean about repetitive info, and it's been mentioned before. Trying to fix it now, let me know what you think — Jack · talk · 20:03, Friday, 16 March 2007
    • I will re-read it completely this weekend; but two qick points. 1) WP:LEAD say that The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. Everything in the intro (i.e. non- dietarty uses) needs to be followed up in more detail in the article. 2)The "See Also" section is huge. This section is supposed to only hold things which are not yet covered in the article. Featured Articles do not have a "See Also" section at all as everything should be incorperated into the article by that stage.--BirgitteSB 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi Jrockley. I originally checked out the article because I saw the request for scientific review; I was forwarded to this page for discussion. I think the article on the whole is solid, but there is one statement in it that gives me pause. I've started a discussion of this on the article's talk page. Briefly, my concern is with a sentence in the introductory paragraph that presents one side of a controversial topic. This statement is factual, but its location and its meaning are such that it biases the reader. The intro paragraph would be just as good without this sentence, but if it is to be left in, I have suggested adding an additional sentence to reference the mainstream scientific point of view, too. Sorry for making this comment so long - jump to the talk page and you'll see my analysis. Antelan ^talk 01:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)