Talk:CYP4F2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Akrasia25 (talk · contribs) 16:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I am nearly done my MSc in Biology and will work on this article.--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Akrasia25: I addressed the issues defined in the first GA review that failed, and will nominate the article again. I deleted primary sources and claims supported by them, added image and identifiers, and removed details which were not necessary. Thank you very much again for your review. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

good luck. I will have a look at it when I get a chance.--Akrasia25 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Review in progress

1. Need EC and CAS number
2. needs images
3. regroup some of the paragraphs to follow the structure of say 21-Hydroxylase
4. Several of the references are over ten years old which is a little too old for a medical/science article. Can you remove them or update them?--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
5. Can you add a reaction to the article?
6. History of discovery?
7. Any info on this enzyme from other animals? Is it highly conserved? % amino acid identities?
8. has there been any work done with knockout mice?
9. date the article in places by putting in "As of July 2021" in suitable places. For example, "With the exception of ketoconazole and sesamin, these findings have not been confirmed in clinical studies"
10. I am not sure about the article's frequent use of the word "controls" How ? can you be more specific?
11. drop the details of each study. This is far too detailed for a Wikipedia article – the average reader doesn’t need to know the number of study participants. "has been confirmed by a study of 21 participants with different CYP4F2*3 variants enrolled (8 for *1/*1, 7 for *1/*3, and 6 for *3/*3).[57] The inhibitory effect of sesamin has been confirmed by a randomized, controlled crossover trial, where 33 overweight "
12. Can you replace some of the primary references with secondary sources from books like the following?

Martha H. Stipanuk, Marie A. Caudill (2018). Biochemical, Physiological, and Molecular Aspects of Human Nutrition - E-Book (4 ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 711. ISBN 9780323402132. Archived from the original on 15 July 2020. Retrieved 4 July 2020.
Volker Böhm (2018). Vitamin E. p. 60. ISBN 978-3-03842-906-7. Archived from the original on 5 July 2020. Retrieved 4 July 2020.
Fred Snyder (6 December 2012). Lipid metabolism in mammals. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 44. ISBN 978-1-4684-2832-2. Archived from the original on 8 August 2020. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
S. Numa, ed. (January 1984). Fatty Acid Metabolism and its Regulation. Elsevier. p. 132. ISBN 0444805281. Archived from the original on 7 July 2021. Retrieved 12 July 2020.

1. It is well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and lists):

I checked for plagiarism and article passes. 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

In general, we strive to use secondary sources (i.e. reviews) as references where possible (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources) as they're a more reliable indicator of mainstream scientific thinking than primary sources. It's completely fine to use primary sources to source uncontroversial facts, and to add detail not available in reviews, especially for a somewhat niche topic like this one. But wherever you can replace older primary sources with newer secondary sources, it improves the reliability of our articles. Also molecular biology changes quickly, so the newer the source, the more likely our article will be up-to-date and reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

Pass.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

All images are appropriately licensed.--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Overall:
Pass/Fail: