Talk:2-Arachidonoylglycerol/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I will review this article; will have comments up here in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not feel that the article meets the GA criteria at this time, and am failing the GAN, as the improvements required will probably take more time to implement than the week or two recommended for GA reviews. Hopefully the list below will help in this article's development. Sasata (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Many issues with prose, typos. Examples:
 * "It is present at relatively high levels in the central nervous system, which started cannabinoid nueromodulatory system in the nervous system." Huh?
 * "The chemical was first described in 1994-1995, although had been discovered some time before that." missing word?
 * " The activities of Phospholipase C..." enyzme names shouldn't be capitalized.
 * "2-Arachidonoylglycerol, next with Anandamide, was the second endocannabinoid discovered. The cannabinoid established the existence of a cannabinoid nueromodulatory system in the nervous system." Ambiguous: which of the two cannabinoids established this existence? (nuero -> neuro)
 * "It has been found in maternal bovine and human milk." Is there a type of milk other than maternal?
 * Reference 6 (Sugiura et al 1994) is not formatted properly. Is there a title? Ref 12 (Savinainen et al) is missing details. There are other minor issues with inconsistent reference formatting, but these are over and above the lightweight GA criteria.
 * Please used title case consistently for journal titles
 * Several more wikilinks would be helpful for the average reader who might might be familiar with the science jargon, e.g.: nM, affinity, signaling


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c(OR):
 * I'm having problems confirming several of the statements made in the article, e.g.:
 * "Shimon Ben-Shabat, School of Pharmacy, discovered the chemical.[5] " This is not what the source says; rather, Ben-Shabat along with several other researchers (Mechoulam, Hanus and colleagues) discovered it. Sasata (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "it is the most abundant molecular species of monoacylglycerol found in mouse and rat brain (~5-10 nmol/g tissue).[2][3]" The second cited source clearly states it is one of the most abundant (not the most abundant). I couldn't find where the source claims "5-10 nmol/g tissue" (I did see "... the level of total arachidonoylglycerol being 4.75 nmol/g tissue..." Sasata (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Detection of 2-AG in brain tissue is complicated by the relative ease of its isomerization to 1-AG during standard lipid extraction conditions." Not cited, and not covered by the source cited in the following sentence. I stopped checking here, it seems clear that every statement in the article should be checked against the source.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There are major deficiencies in this criterion. Pubmed alone lists over 200 review papers with the search term "2-Arachidonoylglycerol", which is totally at odds with the limited number of sources and article length seen here. Here are some major aspects of the topic which are glossed over or not even mentioned at all:
 * The role of 2-AG in feeding regulation in the newborn (covered in, a source used in the article)
 * Biosynthesis is inadequately covered by two sentences. There have been research papers written about this (and review papers summarizing that research, ). Why no mention of 2-AG catabolism?
 * No mention of effects of 2-AG oversigalling
 * Role of 2-AG in neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory disorders
 * Pharmacology/physiology should really be expanded, there's a lot more known about this subject than is implied by the length of the section. See reviews like, , , , (as well as many, many more) for ideas.


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * When the Biosynthesis section gets expanded, a diagram showing the biosynthetic pathway would be helpful.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: