Peer review prior to a month-long editing collaboration has been requested. Thanks for all your comments. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Are these reliable sources? Health-Herbal.com, MotherNature.com Sandy 15:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, I saw those in the article and thought they should be removed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not that the content is bad so much as extremely lopsided. There's way too much poorly sourced or unsourced nutritional stuff and not enough about antioxidants in cell biology (but I'm sure you knew that already). Most of what's currently in the "nutritional antioxidants" section should probably be devolved to the corresponding list and cleaned out of the main article, and the lead should correspondingly be fixed so it doesn't spend twice as much time on nutrition as on anything else. The current biology section should be expanded so that the individual examples can sustain their own separate paragraphs/sections. Also, currently the nonbiological roles of antioxidants are not well covered. Opabinia regalis 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I second ORs comments. Pictures to show how they work in the cell would be a good addition, mabye someone could make a diagram like this. --Peta 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
