This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vitamin A article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Vitamin A has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 22, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Vitamin A.
|
A fact from Vitamin A appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 April 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Vitamin A is term comprimising various alternative forms of vitamin A [1] like vitamin A1 present in the forms of all-trans- retinol, all-trans- retinyl-esters, retinal and various provitamin A- carotenoids, vitamin A2 present in the form of 3,4-didehydroretinol and its esters as well as / dehydroretinal and the postulated vitamin A3,4, which have no human relevance, and the novel postulated form vitamin A5 [1]. In general the term vitamin A is simply used but commonly misused for vitamin A1.
Additional reviews
Vitamin A2
- Discovery and biological relevance of 3,4-didehydroretinol (vitamin A2) in small indigenous fish species and its potential as a dietary source for addressing vitamin A deficiency. La Frano MR, Cai Y, Burri BJ, Thilsted SH. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2018 May;69(3):253-261. doi: 10.1080/09637486.2017.1358358. Epub 2017 Aug 4. Review. PMID: 28776449
- Ling cod and other fish liver oils rich in vitamin A2. MORTON RA, STUBBS AL. Biochem J. 1946;40(5-6):lix. No abstract available. PMID: 20277273
- The identification of dehydroretinol (vitamin A2) in human skin. Vahlquist A. Experientia. 1980 Mar 15;36(3):317-8. PMID: 7371787
- Reproduction and vision in rats maintained on a retinol-free diet containing 3-dehydroretinol (vitamin A2). Howell JM, Thompson JN, Pitt GA. Br J Nutr. 1967;21(2):373-6. No abstract available. PMID: 4952267
- Conversion of carotenoids to 3-dehydroretinol (vitamin A2) in the mouse. Budowski P, Gross J. Nature. 1965 Jun 19;206(990):1254-5. No abstract available. PMID: 5879787
- Biosynthesis of 3-dehydroretinol (vitamin A2) from all-trans-retinol (vitamin A1) in human epidermis. Törmä H, Vahlquist A. J Invest Dermatol. 1985 Dec;85(6):498-500. PMID: 4067325
- Vitamin A in skin and serum--studies of acne vulgaris, atopic dermatitis, ichthyosis vulgaris and lichen planus. Rollman O, Vahlquist A. Br J Dermatol. 1985 Oct;113(4):405-13. PMID: 2933053
-> and many others, which should be added on the vitamin A2 page....which is just linked with dehydroretinal...I have nom idea how to make two pages out of it. -> I can help..but no idea how to do it
Secondly, vitamin A3 and A4, which have no human relevance: - ACS Chem Biol. 2016 Apr 15;11(4):1049-57. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.5b00967. Epub 2016 Feb 2. The Biochemical Basis of Vitamin A3 Production in Arthropod Vision. Babino D1, Golczak M1, Kiser PD1, Wyss A2, Palczewski K1,3, von Lintig J1. PMID:
26811964
PMCID:
PMC4841470
DOI:
10.1021/acschembio.5b00967
-> It will not make a big sense to creat a page about these "vitamins" when they are not really relevent and are just mentioned one time.
Vitamin A5, - is described in a patent and as I heard as a publication submitted. I dont know if this is enough to set up a new page. I have no idea how to do it - as a references we just have this review where it s suggested
---> So, now we have to create a strategy how to explain this well in wiki.
As I said, all is well mixed up in the vitamin A page....and alone I can not start because my added work is blocked.
So, guys and experienced wiki´s tell me what "we" can do and how I can help...
Thanks you
A few comments about this edit. 1) The USDA FoodData Central database continues to be updated (October 2021) and expanded, accounting for new values for the same sources used in the table over years. The values change as more samples and similar sources are analyzed, an ongoing USDA process as the US food supply expands. 2) To check and update data, I browsed through 45 pages of the food source rankings from high to lower contents - a tedious process - as there are hundreds of old revised and new sources in the database, so it is impractical to use the database to find individual sources with the updated data. It's more practical to use the links to go to the nutrition table of individual foods, which may be updated or not. 3) The list of high and low vitamin A foods is subjective. Who still uses cod liver oil as a vitamin A source (was common 60+ years ago), or why should we list spirulina as having little vitamin A? Presenting a representative range of commonly consumed foods in high->low content for the general encyclopedia user is something we should briefly discuss here. 4) I placed a [source] notice for the sentence, "Vitamin A content in animal-sourced foods derives from retinol, while in plant-sourced foods, it derives from beta-carotene and beta-cryptoxanthin which are converted to retinol in the body." 5) We should have a clarifying note beside or under the table about the RAE used as the measurement in the header. Vitamin A may be expressed in IU, ug, or RAE, so is readily a confusing presentation for the general user. Zefr ( talk) 18:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I find the biochemical discussion in the lede paragraph beginning "Retinol is absorbed..." is too technical for general users, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #8. Zefr ( talk) 19:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Some limited editing proposed as a more general description:
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hughesdarren ( talk · contribs) 05:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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. |
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
01:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by David notMD ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: *In the lead, we have ref 3 (Oregon State factsheet) cited in various passages, but I don't see "β-carotene 15,15'-dioxygenase", or "SCARB1", in the source. Granted, it's a very good one and definitely MEDRS-compliant, but it simply does not pinpoint to specific genes/enzymes. Copy from the main body.
Expression of more than 500 genes are responsive to retinoic acid-> expression (subject of the sentence) is singular, so must be "is responsive".
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorderall capitalised?
In 2001, the European Commission imposed total fines of 855.22 Euros on these and five other companies for their participation in eight distinct market-sharing and price-fixing cartels that dated back to 1989.That's dubious - did the European Commission actually fine three companies for what is an average salary in Central-Eastern Europe - that would be interesting as a hook if true? (i.e. isn't it supposed to be "millions"?) Besides, "euro" is not capitalised.
After this is remedied, I see no obvious issues to fix in the article. The article passes the formal criteria, is reasonably sourced (spot checks revealed minor problems, but not something that disqualifies the article), is neutral, free of plagiarism as far as Earwig goes, the hook is cited and fine for a DYK. Just fix these issues as mentioned, and possibly any other issues should you notice them.
I found difficilties interpreting the article due to unit inconsistency: sometimes values are given in μg RAE, and sometimes in IU. Would you mind if I put additional number of IU unit in additional to μg RAE everywhere when μg RAE data is given without an IU, so that we have the IU values as a common denominator? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 01:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vitamin A article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Vitamin A has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 22, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Vitamin A.
|
A fact from Vitamin A appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 April 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Vitamin A is term comprimising various alternative forms of vitamin A [1] like vitamin A1 present in the forms of all-trans- retinol, all-trans- retinyl-esters, retinal and various provitamin A- carotenoids, vitamin A2 present in the form of 3,4-didehydroretinol and its esters as well as / dehydroretinal and the postulated vitamin A3,4, which have no human relevance, and the novel postulated form vitamin A5 [1]. In general the term vitamin A is simply used but commonly misused for vitamin A1.
Additional reviews
Vitamin A2
- Discovery and biological relevance of 3,4-didehydroretinol (vitamin A2) in small indigenous fish species and its potential as a dietary source for addressing vitamin A deficiency. La Frano MR, Cai Y, Burri BJ, Thilsted SH. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2018 May;69(3):253-261. doi: 10.1080/09637486.2017.1358358. Epub 2017 Aug 4. Review. PMID: 28776449
- Ling cod and other fish liver oils rich in vitamin A2. MORTON RA, STUBBS AL. Biochem J. 1946;40(5-6):lix. No abstract available. PMID: 20277273
- The identification of dehydroretinol (vitamin A2) in human skin. Vahlquist A. Experientia. 1980 Mar 15;36(3):317-8. PMID: 7371787
- Reproduction and vision in rats maintained on a retinol-free diet containing 3-dehydroretinol (vitamin A2). Howell JM, Thompson JN, Pitt GA. Br J Nutr. 1967;21(2):373-6. No abstract available. PMID: 4952267
- Conversion of carotenoids to 3-dehydroretinol (vitamin A2) in the mouse. Budowski P, Gross J. Nature. 1965 Jun 19;206(990):1254-5. No abstract available. PMID: 5879787
- Biosynthesis of 3-dehydroretinol (vitamin A2) from all-trans-retinol (vitamin A1) in human epidermis. Törmä H, Vahlquist A. J Invest Dermatol. 1985 Dec;85(6):498-500. PMID: 4067325
- Vitamin A in skin and serum--studies of acne vulgaris, atopic dermatitis, ichthyosis vulgaris and lichen planus. Rollman O, Vahlquist A. Br J Dermatol. 1985 Oct;113(4):405-13. PMID: 2933053
-> and many others, which should be added on the vitamin A2 page....which is just linked with dehydroretinal...I have nom idea how to make two pages out of it. -> I can help..but no idea how to do it
Secondly, vitamin A3 and A4, which have no human relevance: - ACS Chem Biol. 2016 Apr 15;11(4):1049-57. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.5b00967. Epub 2016 Feb 2. The Biochemical Basis of Vitamin A3 Production in Arthropod Vision. Babino D1, Golczak M1, Kiser PD1, Wyss A2, Palczewski K1,3, von Lintig J1. PMID:
26811964
PMCID:
PMC4841470
DOI:
10.1021/acschembio.5b00967
-> It will not make a big sense to creat a page about these "vitamins" when they are not really relevent and are just mentioned one time.
Vitamin A5, - is described in a patent and as I heard as a publication submitted. I dont know if this is enough to set up a new page. I have no idea how to do it - as a references we just have this review where it s suggested
---> So, now we have to create a strategy how to explain this well in wiki.
As I said, all is well mixed up in the vitamin A page....and alone I can not start because my added work is blocked.
So, guys and experienced wiki´s tell me what "we" can do and how I can help...
Thanks you
A few comments about this edit. 1) The USDA FoodData Central database continues to be updated (October 2021) and expanded, accounting for new values for the same sources used in the table over years. The values change as more samples and similar sources are analyzed, an ongoing USDA process as the US food supply expands. 2) To check and update data, I browsed through 45 pages of the food source rankings from high to lower contents - a tedious process - as there are hundreds of old revised and new sources in the database, so it is impractical to use the database to find individual sources with the updated data. It's more practical to use the links to go to the nutrition table of individual foods, which may be updated or not. 3) The list of high and low vitamin A foods is subjective. Who still uses cod liver oil as a vitamin A source (was common 60+ years ago), or why should we list spirulina as having little vitamin A? Presenting a representative range of commonly consumed foods in high->low content for the general encyclopedia user is something we should briefly discuss here. 4) I placed a [source] notice for the sentence, "Vitamin A content in animal-sourced foods derives from retinol, while in plant-sourced foods, it derives from beta-carotene and beta-cryptoxanthin which are converted to retinol in the body." 5) We should have a clarifying note beside or under the table about the RAE used as the measurement in the header. Vitamin A may be expressed in IU, ug, or RAE, so is readily a confusing presentation for the general user. Zefr ( talk) 18:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I find the biochemical discussion in the lede paragraph beginning "Retinol is absorbed..." is too technical for general users, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #8. Zefr ( talk) 19:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Some limited editing proposed as a more general description:
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hughesdarren ( talk · contribs) 05:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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. |
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
01:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by David notMD ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: *In the lead, we have ref 3 (Oregon State factsheet) cited in various passages, but I don't see "β-carotene 15,15'-dioxygenase", or "SCARB1", in the source. Granted, it's a very good one and definitely MEDRS-compliant, but it simply does not pinpoint to specific genes/enzymes. Copy from the main body.
Expression of more than 500 genes are responsive to retinoic acid-> expression (subject of the sentence) is singular, so must be "is responsive".
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorderall capitalised?
In 2001, the European Commission imposed total fines of 855.22 Euros on these and five other companies for their participation in eight distinct market-sharing and price-fixing cartels that dated back to 1989.That's dubious - did the European Commission actually fine three companies for what is an average salary in Central-Eastern Europe - that would be interesting as a hook if true? (i.e. isn't it supposed to be "millions"?) Besides, "euro" is not capitalised.
After this is remedied, I see no obvious issues to fix in the article. The article passes the formal criteria, is reasonably sourced (spot checks revealed minor problems, but not something that disqualifies the article), is neutral, free of plagiarism as far as Earwig goes, the hook is cited and fine for a DYK. Just fix these issues as mentioned, and possibly any other issues should you notice them.
I found difficilties interpreting the article due to unit inconsistency: sometimes values are given in μg RAE, and sometimes in IU. Would you mind if I put additional number of IU unit in additional to μg RAE everywhere when μg RAE data is given without an IU, so that we have the IU values as a common denominator? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 01:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)