Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vitamin C
Vitamin C edit
Seems to me as a very nice and complete article, including the chemical, biological, and historical aspects. Donar Reiskoffer 15:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Well written, a fine example of a wikipedia article --Jarv 17:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea to mention beriberi and scurvy earlier in the article (Where it says vitamin C prevents disease). Other than that, support. Great article. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:54, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support - looks good: thorough, interesting, useful, and easy to read. Spangineer 20:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support - only issue is that the image of the Goat has no image tag. Is from the USDA website but can't find any copyright info--Evil Monkey 22:06, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Minor object. Needs more references, and relies on list form a little too much. Great article otherwise. The table of fruit-to-vitamin-c content is also very large - could this be made smaller? Ambi 01:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Minor Object, I agree, the table on the Fruit -> Vitamin-C content definately needs shrinking, and is a classic example of when a table is unneccesary. Could be done in 1 table with 6 columns, not 3 tables with 2. Not to mention there are around 5-10 entries with same content that dont need their own rows.Alkivar 20:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The table used to be a 6 column one, I changed it to a two column table and split it into three parts. Using a 6 column table for two field data is a bad idea for many reasons, including the fact that the data then is stored in a different order from the way it is presented and interpreted. It makes it hard to modify: for example, inserting one entry near the top forces you to shift the contents of each row that follows, whereas with the three two-column tables you only have to move the ones at the top and the bottom for each table to adjust their heights. The way things are formatted right now, it is even a trivial operation to split the data into four tables whereas changing the 6-column table into an 8-column one requires a bit of markup-fighting. And the problem is not only with editing: you also get the data in the wrong order if you copy it as text in your browser from the 6-column table. Fredrik | talk 20:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Are all of those foods necessary? I know I haven't heard of a number of them (like Lychee and Loganberry), and others are definitely not common. It's definitely interesting information, but cutting a dozen or two out would help the problem, in my opinion. Spangineer 00:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- The table used to be a 6 column one, I changed it to a two column table and split it into three parts. Using a 6 column table for two field data is a bad idea for many reasons, including the fact that the data then is stored in a different order from the way it is presented and interpreted. It makes it hard to modify: for example, inserting one entry near the top forces you to shift the contents of each row that follows, whereas with the three two-column tables you only have to move the ones at the top and the bottom for each table to adjust their heights. The way things are formatted right now, it is even a trivial operation to split the data into four tables whereas changing the 6-column table into an 8-column one requires a bit of markup-fighting. And the problem is not only with editing: you also get the data in the wrong order if you copy it as text in your browser from the 6-column table. Fredrik | talk 20:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Minor Object, I agree, the table on the Fruit -> Vitamin-C content definately needs shrinking, and is a classic example of when a table is unneccesary. Could be done in 1 table with 6 columns, not 3 tables with 2. Not to mention there are around 5-10 entries with same content that dont need their own rows.Alkivar 20:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Object. Needs more and better (less bias) references - the one vanity press? reference is dubious and inadequate. Seems a bit heavy on advocacy and short on science. I just edited the section on harmful effects - fixed a number of errors, whole article needs careful copyedit. -Vsmith 02:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Please be more specific on what problems you see. Obviously others have tried copyediting and have not seen or been able to fix what you have seen. - Taxman 04:22, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I have made numerous edits to this page over the last year. Pleased to see it getting so much attention and improvement. I have plans to further update the advocacy section as its poorly written and to include a Claimed beneficial effects of Vitamin c section to balance the harmful effects one. (which I started) Lumos3 13:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- OK, the copyedit part was the minor problem, I thought - "hmm did I fix em all?" - so went looking:
- synthesise 3 times, synthesize 1 time (maybe the s form is correct someplace, but not to me) - even so inconsistent.
- Intro section 1928 linked 1932 not - consistency? also ascorbic acid linked twice in one paragraph - ?
- Inconsistent capitalisation of Arctic. The inconsistent cap of the c in vitamin C was what first caught my attention (fixed that).
- These from just a quick check on part of the article tells me no one is really looking. That said, my main objection was the lack of good references and the apparent bias that jumps out in several places. Those are the real problem. Example: the lead sentence in the Reported potential harmful effects section Reports of harmful effects of vitamin C tend to receive great prominence in the world's media. screams POV. -Vsmith 23:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- OK, the copyedit part was the minor problem, I thought - "hmm did I fix em all?" - so went looking: