Talk:Vitamin C/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 26, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lead: It is also needed by guinea pigs and some species of birds and fish. Do these organisms produce it internally? It is a little unclear here as guinea pigs and some species of birds and fish are not listed in the exceptions. It is explained further down in Biosynthesis, although fish aren't mentioned there.  Done

   The section Collagen, carnitine, and tyrosine synthesis, and microsomal metabolism has an outstanding unclear tag and indeed the prose here is poor. The bullet points don't hep. Please rewrite for clarity and better grammar.  Done

   Testing for ascorbate levels in the body: Simple tests use DCPIP to measure the levels of vitamin C. Spell out Dichlorophenolindophenol, using acronyms which are likely unknown to the reader is not helpful. As a general point don't just wikilink terms, spell them out and explain on first introduction. This is not a specialsit encyclopaedia, it is aimed at the general reader.  Done

   There are a lot of single sentence paragraphs, even single sentence sections, consider revising the prose to improve flow and readability. It is very choppy in parts, perhaps as the result of additions by a number of editors.  Not done

   Try and avoid phrases such as As discussed previously  Done

   Animal sources: seems to re-hash information already presented.  Not done

   Japanese Pharmacopoeia [162][clarification needed] - unadressed tag.  Not done

   The lead does not fully summarise the article as per WP:LEAD  Not done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I tagged three dead links found with WP:CHECKLINKS  Done

   I assume good faith for off-line sources, all others check out

   There are a number of un-cited statements which I have tagged.  Not done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is a certain amount of repetition within the main body of the article, consider revising the structure for clarity  Not done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   As it stands, the article could do with a thorough rework for clarity. There are un-cited statements and some dead links need fixing. I shall place it on hold for seven days. If substantial progress is not made within this time, it will be de-listed. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   There is still much to be done, so I will de-list now. When these issues, most importantly reworking and organising the whole article for style and clarity, then it may be re-nominated at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Many of the cites have been put in. Since it is difficult for the writers to judge which sections are least clear to readers, it would be very helpful if you could cite here which sections you found particularly confusing, poorly written, or otherwise in worse need of work. Thanks! SBHarris 20:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples of poor prose

As requested:

• Vitamin C is purely the L-enantiomer of ascorbate; Better to say: Vitamin C is the pure L-enantiomer of ascorbate;
• and thus, will not create a superoxide. - and thus will not create a superoxide.
• The presence of glutathione is crucial since it spares ascorbate and improves antioxidant capacity of blood - The presence of glutathione is crucial since it spares ascorbate and improves the antioxidant capacity of blood.
• L-Ascorbate is a weak sugar acid structurally related to glucose that naturally occurs attached either to a hydrogen ion, forming ascorbic acid, or to a metal ion, forming a mineral ascorbate. - L-Ascorbate is a weak sugar acid, structurally related to glucose, that naturally occurs attached either to a hydrogen ion, forming ascorbic acid, or to a metal ion, forming a mineral ascorbate.
• Knockout animals for SVCT2 die shortly after birth,[37] suggesting that SVCT2-mediated vitamin C transport is necessary for life. - Knockout?
• Although the body's maximal store of vitamin C is largely determined by the renal threshold for blood, there are many tissues that maintain vitamin C concentrations far higher than in blood. - Unclear, does not really make sense.
• Western societies generally consume sufficient Vitamin C to prevent scurvy. - surely: People in Western socities?
• In human dietary studies of experimentally induced scury (one conducted on concientious objectors during WW II in Britain, and another on Iowa state prisoner "volunteers" in the late 1960's) found that all obvious symptoms of scurvy previously induced by an experimental scorbutic diet with extremely low vitamin C intake, could be completely reversed by additional vitamin C supplementation of 10 mg a day in both studies. - apart from the spelling mistake this is an overly complex sentence.
• Throughout history, the benefit of plant food to survive long sea voyages has been occasionally recommended by authorities. ? Surely the benefit of plant food in aiding sailor (or people) to survive....
• The above just from the top part of the article. Look hard at every paragraph, consolidate the stray sentences. I recommend you enlist the aid of a copy-editor, perhaps from WP:COPYEDITORS. Also, consider reducing repetition, perhaps condensing the artcile as at times it appears to go into too much detail and as it stands is rather too long. Remember that this is for the general reader, not a specialist. In places the text is almost impenetrable due to extensive use of scientific terms without explanation. Wiki-linking alone is not enough.
• Look at the lead, it does not summarise the article.
• How about explaining why it is called Vitamin C?
• As you se there is much to be done, good luck. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)