Talk:Lipid/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Plenty of things to keep this article from GA, so I'll not make an exhaustive review, just mention the ones easiest to spot:

• Well-written:
  • "platelets, and other substances" cells aren't substances

Have reworded this sentence. Sasata (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Steroid hormones aren't lipids (Sterol lipids section), neither are triacylglycerols (Nutrition and health section), you need to reword

?? Of course they are. What are you talking about? Sasata (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• • For some reason the reference list is called Notes, and there is a section called References which doesn't contain anything useful

The reason is called the MOS, see specifically Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Example_edits_for_different_methods#Shortened_notes. The References section contains the titles of the textbooks referred to in short form in the "notes" section. Sasata (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a rather cryptic way of giving references... will you let me change it? Narayanese (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just give me a day to add more citations... edit conflicts are annoying. Sasata (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Accurate and verifiable
  • The article contains a lot of material with no references (say if you want me to add inline tags).

I've added numerous other references, but let me know what else you think needs to be cited. Sasata (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Nutrition and health and the plant bit in Energy storage and metabolism are probably not completely accurate

Plant bit removed; nutrition and health updated with recent studies supporting other side of dietary high fat -> disease debate. Sasata (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Broad
  • The sterol lipid section forgets to mention non-animal sterol lipids like ergosterol

Now mentioned. Sasata (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • No mention of surfactants, vesicles (I'm not expecting whole sections, just mention)

I added a mention of vesicles, but am hesitant to add about surfactants, as technically they are not lipids, but detergents, and are used in studies of lipid biophysics, membrane proteins, etc. I'll try to put something in if you really feel it's necessary. Sasata (talk)

I have no idea what you mean by a detergent not being able to also be a lipid, but I'll let it rest. Narayanese (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Too little on lipid synthesis (chloroplast function, ER elongation, glycerol and head group addition, modifications such as desaturation), nothing on lipid degradation

Started a lipid metabolism section to address this. It's rather difficult knowing how much to put in a summary article like this; it's mostly bare-bones for now, but have a look and let me know what needs further expanding, removal, or rewriting for clarity.

Sasata (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, giving it its own section made it plenty easier to navigate to. Looks fine in length, just a last few sources left (paragraph 2). Narayanese (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

2nd paragraph now has reference. Sasata (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral
  • The high fat diet -> obesity link is far from uncontroversial (I get the impression it is a minority view), it should be not presented as an established fact. Likely the same goes for diabetes as the two diseases are related.

See above. I can add more if you like, maybe some recent (2008-2009) review papers. Sasata (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Stable
  • Yup
• Images
  • File:Phosphatidyl-Ethanolamine.png has a angry-looking tag on it, should be easy to fix

I'm not sure how to do it, but I'll get some help. Sasata (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Now fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • None of them have references

Are references necessary? What would I cite? If you have a look at the featured article metabolism, you'll see none of their structure diagrams have references. Sasata (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Is File:Trimyristin-3D-vdW.png based on real structural data or on simulation?

I have no idea, most of this stuff was here already when I got here :) Do you think this information will be important to the average reader coming to this article looking for an overview of what lipids are? Sasata (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more that my experience with simple structure simulation software is that they're not reproducible (so the structure you get out is pretty random). Narayanese (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Narayanese (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing a long atherosclerosis part, as I felt the section would be better (less waiting to get to the lipid part) with the mention of death/suffereing after saying saturated fats cause the disease. But when I tried to move it I saw the sources didn't mention dietary lipids, so I'll have to find some other sources. I was rather on the long side anyway for just saying it is an unpleasant disease. Narayanese (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The health and nutrition section has remaining problems. It doesn't manage always distinguish what's proven (trans-fats raise cardivascular disease risks, fish oil lower them, and some lipids are essential nutrients) and where there is more uncertainty (effect of saturated to cis-unsaturated on health, thinking about [1] and PMID 19364995). Cutting out controversial things and focusing on the really well-proven would be the easy way out, as health effect of lipids isn't a central part of the topic of lipids I think. The health part of the lead will eventually also need to be updated. Narayanese (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I completely axed the third paragraph, as it had information that was either dubious (based on older sources) or repeated elsewhere. The section is now two paragraphs long, a length I think works well and doesn't put too much emphasis on what should only be a small topic within a general lipids article. I added a bit about the trans-fat/diet relationship like you suggested (referenced to solid, recent review articles), but left in the dietary fat/health controversy paragraph – it's interesting and probably many readers will be looking here for more information. Have also revamped the lead. Sasata (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks good! I'll probably get get through the last bits of text this evening (was away durign the weekend). Some things to look at:

• ...3 fatty acids in infant development, cancer... should it be on instead of in? (unsure about grammar)

Changed to "on". Sasata (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• amphipathic. Difficult word, and the link doesn't help

Have added a parenthetical definition. Sasata (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Several structure pictures still lack references

See my comment above, I don't think structure diagrams need refs. Also, have a look at the Featured Articles Anabolic steroid, Caffeine, and Oxidative phosphorylation - none of the structure diagrams in those articles have references either. Sasata (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Narayanese (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The reviewers of Oxidative phosphorylation clearly didn't do the review properly, as they let through a picture with multiple errors. (noticed now that most pictures in the article are from after the review) How am I or any reader supposed to know if an illustration is correct or not if the is no pointer to a place to verify it? Some things, like phospholipid structure, are widespread knowledge and the reader to easily find it by a quick web search. That's not the case with things like cholesterol stereochemistry. Narayanese (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added references for what I could find. Could not find an independent structure verification for 1-myristoyl-2-palmitoyl-sn-glycero phosphocholine or N-myristoyl-sphing-4-enine. I suppose the Sigma catalogue might have them, but I doubt that qualifies as a good source; feel free to remove the image if you think it's necessary. I didn't try to find a reference for the space-filling model of a triglyceride, as its identity isn't really important, it's there just to show the overall shape and amphiliphile nature (added a bit in the caption to emphazise this). Sasata (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the Sigma catalogue - in my mind commercial sources are just fine as long as the provider is known not to be a charlatan and it's not promotional, and it would be neither here. But systematic names sort of give their own structures (not that I'm that good at reading them, sn and N use makes it a bit hard). But triacylglycerols are not amphipathic. I remove the caption and the picture, since it seems the picture deceives if that is the conclusion you draw from it. Narayanese (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Wasn't able to find those two structures, so removed the diagram. Sasata (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's just as well when the a web search doesn't even turn up the compound's name. I still have some references to look through, but the article looks good throughout, nothing left to complain about. Narayanese (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm passing it as Good Article, per WP:WIAGA. The additions to the artcile in my last bunch of edits should be small enough to be uncontroversial (though the removals might not be). Narayanese (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)