The contents of the Vitamin C and the common cold page were merged into Vitamin C on 11 February 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vitamin C 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: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Vitamin C is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vitamin C 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 C.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Checking for relevant meta-analyses and systematic reviews published after this became a Good Article in late 2017. David notMD ( talk) 04:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I nominated for Featured Article on 20 December 2023, but the initial evaluation identified too many shortfalls to start the process, so application was reverted. Have not decided yet whether to burnish the article and try again or let it remain as a Good Article which I watch and try to keep current as new research is published. David notMD ( talk) 00:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Nominated a second time on 8 February 2024. David notMD ( talk) 04:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The FA nomination process ended on 1 March with a not accepted. David notMD ( talk) 22:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
So, 1 and 2 are for referenced quotes, and 2, 3 & 4 are for many very short sections of text David notMD ( talk) 23:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
My evaluation is that none of these are a true copyright violation. David notMD ( talk) 13:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
A FA reviewer recommended consistency in reference page numbering and sentence versus title case in article titles. Addressing this is resulting in a large number of Edit summaries as ref fix (minor). David notMD ( talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The FA nomination review, after three weeks of comments from reviewers, and responses, ended 1 March with the nomination not being accepted. David notMD ( talk) 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @ David notMD!
I think that we should add more information that is easier to understand on vitamin C oral absorption, and, in particular, on its limits. Although there is already the information in the article, it is not that easy to undertand. It is not that clear in the article. We write the encyclopedia for as wide audience as possible, and we should make it clear that the fact that a person drinks a vitamin C solution or tablets (capsules) does not mean that it will be absorbed.
The following quotes from PMID 31601028 may be a starting point:
Although these qoutes may be useful as a starting point, I guess we should try to explain in simple words on how much is absorbed, say, for a dose of 200 mg, 1000 mg, 2000 mg, 10000 mg per day / per dose and so on. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 17:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I removed "more research is needed" or "further research is needed" or similar cliches, and, as a consistence, move all the poorly sourced claims which are subject of ongoing research to a separate "Research directions" section, see Further research is needed. I may have not moved all such "more research is needed" claims as I might have overlooked something, but I strongly encourage doing that way to avoid "more research is needed"-related statements in the main article and use a separate section instead to distinguish clearly the strong claims from poor claims which are the subject of ongoing research or when the evidence is poor. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 23:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I propose to resolve vague statements about "claims", in particular, the following statements:
Various health claims exist on the basis that moderate vitamin C deficiency increases disease risk, such as for the common cold, cancer or COVID-19.
There are also claims of benefits from vitamin C supplementation in excess of the recommended dietary intake for people who are not considered vitamin C deficient.
Such statements are perplexing because it is unclear whether these claims are substantiated. If they are unsubstantiated, I propose to rewrite the following way:
Various unsubstantiated health claims exist on the basis that moderate vitamin C deficiency increases disease risk, such as for the common cold, cancer or COVID-19.
There are also unsubstantiated claims of benefits from vitamin C supplementation in excess of the recommended dietary intake for people who are not considered vitamin C deficient.
If these claims are substantiated, then I propose to rewrite the sentences to simply state the facts rather than referring to them as claims:
Moderate vitamin C deficiency was proven to increases disease risk, such as for the common cold, cancer or COVID-19.
There are proven benefits from vitamin C supplementation in excess of the recommended dietary intake for people who are not considered vitamin C deficient.
We have to write Wikipedia articles to be easy to understand, so when a reader finds the words "claims" such reader should not be forced to search sources to figure out whether these claims are true or false or are a point of debate. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 01:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The contents of the Vitamin C and the common cold page were merged into Vitamin C on 11 February 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vitamin C 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: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Vitamin C is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vitamin C 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 C.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Checking for relevant meta-analyses and systematic reviews published after this became a Good Article in late 2017. David notMD ( talk) 04:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I nominated for Featured Article on 20 December 2023, but the initial evaluation identified too many shortfalls to start the process, so application was reverted. Have not decided yet whether to burnish the article and try again or let it remain as a Good Article which I watch and try to keep current as new research is published. David notMD ( talk) 00:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Nominated a second time on 8 February 2024. David notMD ( talk) 04:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The FA nomination process ended on 1 March with a not accepted. David notMD ( talk) 22:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
So, 1 and 2 are for referenced quotes, and 2, 3 & 4 are for many very short sections of text David notMD ( talk) 23:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
My evaluation is that none of these are a true copyright violation. David notMD ( talk) 13:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
A FA reviewer recommended consistency in reference page numbering and sentence versus title case in article titles. Addressing this is resulting in a large number of Edit summaries as ref fix (minor). David notMD ( talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The FA nomination review, after three weeks of comments from reviewers, and responses, ended 1 March with the nomination not being accepted. David notMD ( talk) 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @ David notMD!
I think that we should add more information that is easier to understand on vitamin C oral absorption, and, in particular, on its limits. Although there is already the information in the article, it is not that easy to undertand. It is not that clear in the article. We write the encyclopedia for as wide audience as possible, and we should make it clear that the fact that a person drinks a vitamin C solution or tablets (capsules) does not mean that it will be absorbed.
The following quotes from PMID 31601028 may be a starting point:
Although these qoutes may be useful as a starting point, I guess we should try to explain in simple words on how much is absorbed, say, for a dose of 200 mg, 1000 mg, 2000 mg, 10000 mg per day / per dose and so on. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 17:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I removed "more research is needed" or "further research is needed" or similar cliches, and, as a consistence, move all the poorly sourced claims which are subject of ongoing research to a separate "Research directions" section, see Further research is needed. I may have not moved all such "more research is needed" claims as I might have overlooked something, but I strongly encourage doing that way to avoid "more research is needed"-related statements in the main article and use a separate section instead to distinguish clearly the strong claims from poor claims which are the subject of ongoing research or when the evidence is poor. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 23:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I propose to resolve vague statements about "claims", in particular, the following statements:
Various health claims exist on the basis that moderate vitamin C deficiency increases disease risk, such as for the common cold, cancer or COVID-19.
There are also claims of benefits from vitamin C supplementation in excess of the recommended dietary intake for people who are not considered vitamin C deficient.
Such statements are perplexing because it is unclear whether these claims are substantiated. If they are unsubstantiated, I propose to rewrite the following way:
Various unsubstantiated health claims exist on the basis that moderate vitamin C deficiency increases disease risk, such as for the common cold, cancer or COVID-19.
There are also unsubstantiated claims of benefits from vitamin C supplementation in excess of the recommended dietary intake for people who are not considered vitamin C deficient.
If these claims are substantiated, then I propose to rewrite the sentences to simply state the facts rather than referring to them as claims:
Moderate vitamin C deficiency was proven to increases disease risk, such as for the common cold, cancer or COVID-19.
There are proven benefits from vitamin C supplementation in excess of the recommended dietary intake for people who are not considered vitamin C deficient.
We have to write Wikipedia articles to be easy to understand, so when a reader finds the words "claims" such reader should not be forced to search sources to figure out whether these claims are true or false or are a point of debate. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 01:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)