Talk:Vitamin C

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateVitamin 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.
Good articleVitamin 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 24, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 26, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 27, 2017Good article nomineeListed
December 20, 2023Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 9, 2024Peer reviewReviewed
March 1, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 11, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1934 vitamin C was the first synthetic vitamin to be trademarked (as Redoxon) and marketed?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Checking for newer meta-analyses and systematic reviews[edit]

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)[reply]

Removed some of the Common cold subsection text and references and added a 2023 meta-analysis. David notMD (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COVID-19 subsection replaced because of new references. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added Type 2 diabetes subsection based on 2023 meta-analysis. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In process of adding Adverse effects for high dose intravenous administration, also Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics for high dose intravenous. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added blood pressure subsection based on two meta-analyses. Did not add text and ref (one meta-analysis) about intravenous VitC for burns treatment, as results were deemed inconclusive by authors. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Food fortification. David notMD (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added Sepsis subsection under Medical. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for FA[edit]

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)[reply]

Revising content, including Lead, for clarity of language, less redundancy, etc. Also checking refs to confirm what is in refs validates text. Preference, but not an absolute requirement, will be to refs that are available online. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will submit for Peer review before resubmitting for FA. David notMD (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Submitted for Peer review 9 January. David notMD (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing evaluation of quality of references, including replacing those that are not WP:MEDRS or are journal article refs more than 20 years old that can be replaced by newer refs. David notMD (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated a second time on 8 February 2024. David notMD (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just had a quick look. A lot of the sourcing is old, and throughout WP:MEDSAY is not observed with a lot of "A meta-analysis said .." type wording. Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bon courage I will address MEDSAY throughout. Some of the sourcing relates to history and discovery, so 'old' is appropriate. For everything else, is there a year you consider the dividing line between old and appropriate? David notMD (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDDATE says 5 years. A PubMed search using the terms "systematic review meta-analysis" gives 327 articles, the best of which are already included. This search found several MDPI publications which should be scrutinized.
When "Cochrane" is added as a search term, 194 articles are retrieved, but with MDPI and Cureus hits (should be avoided). In the article, there are numerous Nutrients (MDPI) sources, which may be predatory, and should be replaced if a better review exists for the FA.
I use the "unreliable" script ('User:Headbomb/unreliable.js'); which paints sources that deserve a second look. There are several dozen of these in the article. Zefr (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zefr I will review references with WP:MEDDATE, MDPI journals and the journal Nutrients in particular, in mind. Most of the references of concern appear to be in the sections Deficiency, Medical uses and Adverse (#19-81). That includes Nutrients refs 24, 36, 64, 68 & 79. If, for example, the article cites multiple meta-analyses in support of content, I will remove the older or MDPI if the newer is of same or better quality (for example, incorporates a larger number of clinical trials).
I am not familiar with using the "unreliable" script, so I may ask for guidance before implementing that. Thank you for your comments. David notMD (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was mostly the cancer sources which seemed old (I updated a couple); otherwise this does not seem a big issue now. Bon courage (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nutrients journal refs now numbered 27 Xu, 39 Olczak, 56 Pullar, 72 Shrestha and 116 Lykkesfeldf. I will check at PubMed to find out if other ref options possible. David notMD (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The FA nomination process ended on 1 March with a not accepted. David notMD (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check 18 January 2024[edit]

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230149/ shows up as a 53.4% Violation possible because there is a quote or several sentences - referenced - in the Food Fortification section.
  2. https://www.nap.edu/read/9810/chapter/7 Vitamin C shows up as a 51.0% Violation possible because in Adverse effects section, two sentences are quoted (and referenced), plus there are many very short sections of text common to the reference and the article
  3. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-C Linus Pauling Institute shows up as a 41.2% Violation possible because there are many very short sections of text common to both
  4. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminC-HealthProfessional/ NIH Fact sheet shows up as a 37.5% Violation possible because there are many very short sections of text common to both

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)[reply]

Checked again on 24 February. For same sources and reasons as above:
  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230149/ now showing up as a 53.1% Violation
  2. https://www.nap.edu/read/9810/chapter/7 now showing up as 56.1% Violation
  3. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-C now showing up as a 39.8% Violation
  4. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminC-HealthProfessional/ now showing up as a 36.3% Violation

My evaluation is that none of these are a true copyright violation. David notMD (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref fixes[edit]

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)[reply]

Completed. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FA nomination not accepted[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vitamin_C&oldid=1217366348"