Talk:Riboflavin/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting this review now.

Lead

• REDUCED FROM SIX REFS TO THREE IN LEAD Per MOS:LEADCITE, most (if not all) of the references in the lead should be moved into the main body of the article.

What's special about those three? WP:LEDE says you only should have citations in the lede for "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", which doesn't seem to be the case here. The idea of the lede is that it's an easy-to-read introduction. Unnecessary citations just make it more difficult to read.

• PREFER NOT TO WIKILINK HERE Link coenzyme, and possibly also flavin mononucleotide, and flavin adenine dinucleotide. If you link of these, you'll probably need to rearrange the wording to avoid the WP:SEAOFBLUE problem.

Why do you not want to link it here? It's the logical place; the first time it's used in the article.

OK LINKED IN LEAD, UNLINKED IN FUNCTIONS. David notMD (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• DONE "milk and other dairy products" can be simplified to just "dairy products".
• DONE Overall, I think the lead dives into detail a bit more than it needs to. I'm not sure where to tighten it up, but take a look and see if you can trim some of the less important material. "although it does occur in time of chronic or acute under-nutrition" could probably go. Likewise, "and have essential roles in"
• DONE At the same time you're cutting material, I think it would also be good to mention some of the major physical properties, such as it being a water-soluble yellow-orange crystalline powder. And once you mention that, then "In the European Union, riboflavin powder is designated as a yellow-orange food additive." could be reduced to just "it is used as a food coloring".

Definition

• REMOVED QUOTES FOR FLAVIN Why is flavin in quotes, but not ribose?

• EEEEK! Removed that sentence. Intestinal bacteria are known to synthesize some vitamins, but never in amounts sufficient to meet requirements. Regardless, discussion of that does not belong in Definition. I will circle back to add more appropriate content to Definition. The fact that it's produced by bacteria in the gut seems at odds with its designation as a vitamin, which I understand to be something which you need to ingest because you can't make yourself. I guess this comes down to whether your gut bacteria is part of "yourself". So, do you get some directly from digesting vegetables that you eat, and then your gut bacteria produce more of it? This could use a better explanation.
  • DEFINITION EXPANDED A BIT. David notMD (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Functions

• DONE, ALSO 'CELL RESPIRATION' link metabolism (or maybe energy metabolism).

• I don't get the "Riboflaven is essential for the metabolism of ... circulating toxins and drugs". The other things listed are all specific classes of chemical compounds, so it makes sense that there would be a common factor in their metabolism. But toxins and drugs are broad general terms and they don't fit into any specific class of chemical structures. Maybe it should be "... certain types of toxins and drugs", or "... XXX type of toxins and YYY-class drugs"?
  • EEEEK! The sentence in the reference is "These coenzymes play major roles in energy production; cellular function, growth, and development; and metabolism of fats, drugs, and steroids [1-3]." No mention of toxins. The references are to books (most recent dated 2014) I do not have. First step is to remove mention of steroids, circulating toxins and drugs. Second step will be to search for journal literature that meets WP:MEDRS and elaborates on ribolflavin roles for those claims. David notMD (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• DONE "circulating levels of the amino acid, homocysteine", drop the comma. Or maybe drop the "amino acid" too. There's a link; you can click through to Homocysteine amd the first sentence tells you its an amino acid.

Redox reactions

• "Redox reactions are cellular processes...", well, yeah, they are, but "cellular process" is much too specifc. Redox reactions occur all over the place, outside of cells. Maybe it's OK the way it is, but think about other ways that might be phrased.

• Combine that single-sentence paragraph into the preceding paragraph. It sounds stilted to start two consecutive sentences with "FAD...". How about, "It also catalyzes the activity..."
  • COMPLETELY REVISED, based on description in Present Knowledge in Nutrition (2020). David notMD (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Biosynthesis

• NO IMPROVEMENT POSSIBLE I copied the pathway from an existing article. Please recommend either leaving as is or deleting. I favor deleting. The pathway diagrams are poor quality, and barely legible. I know this is a big request, but they really should be redrawn better.

I'm in a quandry here. Having the diagrams improves the article, but these aren't useful in their current state. WP:GACR doesn't require that the images be legible, so I can't really insist, but let's say I'll enthusiastically encourage producing better versions of these. I reject the idea of "NO IMPROVEMENT POSSIBLE". I think what you're trying to say is "It's more work than I'm willing to invest", no?

See Special:Diff/1055955113

How about "IMPROVEMENT DIFFICULT FOR ME"? I have never attempted to create a chemical diagram of any type. I added this synthesis pathway because it was available from another Wikipedia article, but in thinking about article readers, my opinion now is that the text description is sufficient as long as there is the reference to Present Knowledge in Nutrition, which has an excellent synthesis diagram on page 193 and text on page 195-196. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion I linked to on WT:WikiProject Chemistry. I looks like you could just drop in File:Riboflavin Synthase Mechanism.png and that would be a significant improvement. I'd suggest inserting it as a right|thumb image so it doesn't take up so much space.

Never mind, I've taken care of it.

• DELETING Mech 4.jpg would end this problem. Also, File:Mech 4.jpg and File:Riboflavin.svg show the structure reversed left-to-right from each other, which made it difficult for me to understand until I realized this. Is there any standard for how to orient a structure drawing to eliminate this sort of confusion? Or do people just deal with it?

The biosynthesis section is well below GA standard and lacks detailed reliable sources. I re-wrote an article Biosynthesis of Vitamin B12 when the main vitamin B12 article was up for GA review in 2020 and I'm happy to assist here: riboflavin's biosynthesis is simple compared to B12 and can probably be covered within the main article: see this typical detailed reference. I can also (re)do any required chemical structures/pathways as .svg files. Please use my Talk Page for specific requests. as I'll leave it to others involved to decide how the article should be structured.. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull thank you for your comments. I have a basic understanding of biochemisty but I'm not a subject matter expert, and I'm certainly not familiar with the biochemistry literature. I see that Zefr made some improvements to the references, but your comment looks like it came after those edits and you still see problems. So what I'm going to do is put this review on hold and let you folks work on the referencing issue and ping me what that's been resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I've redone the biosynthesis section with what I'd consider would be appropriate in a good article. Feel free to tweak the details. I note that the article uses Pubchem as its source in multiple places. You need to be aware that Pubchem is a database and not fully reliable. It would be better to drill down to the actual journal (or other) references which Pubchem is citing rather than leave it to readers here to work out what they are. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, thanks. @David notMD I haven't had a chance to come back to this in detail yet, but I agree with Mike; using the more specific direct source would be an improvement. You could start working on that until I get a chance to get back to this. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Chemical properties

• CHANGED PER SUGGESTION "It is soluble in water and sodium chloride solutions". I looked up the reference, it also talks about being soluble in absolute ethanol. Would it be reading too much into this to say, "It is soluble in polar solvents, such as water and aqueous sodium chloride solutions, and to a lesser extent, absolute ethanol"? Likewise, generalizing about non-polar solvents, which would include the lipids mentioned, plus others in the reference.

Dietary recommendations

• I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE REQUESTING " The current EARs for riboflavin ..." -> "{{as of}}, the EARs for riboflavin..."

The problem with saying "currently" is that it's time sensitive. The NAM could change their recommendations tomorrow, and then the "currently..." statement will no longer be true. The {{as of}} template expands into some appropriate wording, and also puts the article in a maintenance category to make it easier to keep these statements up to date.

Ah ha! Removed word "current" before EARs. The preceding sentence makes clear that the last update was 1998. David notMD (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You still want to use {{as of}} because it puts the article in Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements which is useful for maintenance purposes. You can use the alt= parameter if the default wording doesn't work. For example, you might do {{as of|1998|alt=The EARs}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I PUT IN 'As of' David notMD (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Absorption, metabolism, excretion

• CHANGED TO "amounts" "treated with pharmacological amount of riboflavin", amount --> amounts. Or maybe "a" before "pharmacological"?

Diagnosis and assessment

• DELETED " Riboflavin deficiency is also known as ariboflavinosis." this is already stated in an earlier section.

Well, that's a first pass. I'll take a break for now and come back to this later.

Ping me when you're done working through all of these comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith I am done working through these comments. (Sent you a note yesterday, but wanted to have one on this page, also). David notMD (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll try to get back to this today. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In the interim I will look at Mike T's changes to the article. David notMD (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

2nd pass

Looking over the whole article again, here's what I see:

• In the tables that accompany "Dietary recommendations", what does "ND" mean? I'm guessing it means "No Data", in which case, why have the column at all? Also, there's no need to say "Infants" in "Infants 0-6 months" (likewise 6-12 months).
  • REMOVED COLUMN AND "INFANTS" ALSO FIXED TABLE ERRORS David notMD (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• In "Sources", link "Department of Agriculture".
  • DONE David notMD (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Also in Sources, I don't think the big three-part table adds much to the article. The deeper issue is that I don't see how to correlate this with the cited source. It's a database. I haven't been able to figure out how to even query it to verify the values given in the table. If you put "Riboflavin (mg)" in the "Search by Component" box, you get a ton of entries back ("Currently showing page 1 of 1838 total pages") which isn't useful as a reference. The description you give doesn't even match the data. You say, "rounded to nearest tenth of a milligram for columns 1 & 2", but you've got entries like "0.25-0.4". The column headings say "per 100 grams", but entries like "one cup" are clearly not 100g. Not to mention the odd mix of imperial and metric units.
  • A THREE-COLUMN TABLE OF FOOD SOURCE EXAMPLES HAS BEEN ADDED TO ALL OTHER VITAMIN ARTICLES that I have raised to GA without challenge from the reviewers not subsequent criticism from editors. I am in process of removing mention of rounding to nearest tenth of milligram and will instead post the numbers as they appear in the source document. As to using the source document, the method I used was to use Food Search SR Legacy Foods, rather than Composition Search. I have changed the ref URL accordingly. David notMD (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I will address these. David notMD (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC) COMPLETED 28 Nov 2021

• One other thing I noticed, what's a "lipid solvent". Does that mean this can disolve in lipds? Or can disolve in something that disolves lipids? I see the term used in the literature (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bit.260280221), but we don't have a lipid solvent article to link to. The place that looks like it's linking there is really linking to lipid and to solvent as two links (see WP:SEAOFBLUE). This could use some clarification.
  • "lipid" removed as adjective for solvent. David notMD (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Failed review

This has been on hold for 7 days and it doesn't look like any progress is being made on the issues pointed out above, so I've marked this as having failed the GA review. Once the issues have been addressed, it can be re-submitted for another review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, review started 15 Nov, all first pass queries were addressed by 21 Nov. Second set of queries posted 24 Nov, then GA review "Failed" without any attempt to contact me, on 27 Nov. I completed all requested changes in the second set of queries by 28 Nov and resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)