Talk:Moisturizer

Questionable Claim: Mineral Oils replacing Vegetable Oils
The "Kinds" section includes the following paragraph:

"Mineral oils and waxes are insensitive to oxidation or rancidity.[12] For this reason, they have essentially replaced vegetable oils in emollients and topical medication."

The claim that mineral oils have "essentially replaced vegetable oils in emollients" seems incorrect. There are plenty of moisturizers on the market that are made with vegetable oils rather than mineral oils. Therefore, the second sentence of this paragraph should be removed. 74.70.85.94 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding content
I used this article for a school project. I added content to the lead section "Moisturizers are products used to add hydration to the skin. I Aldo added to the mechanisms in action section. I added information about parabens as well as lipidization. To the Kinds section I added different vitamins that should be used in your products. these consisted of Vitamins D, C, E, and K. I also added to this section that having an SPF 15 included in your moisturizer is beneficial. Adding to the over moituriztion section I added information relating to if you over moisturize your skin will not have a better a ppearnce but is more damaging and harmful to your skin then it does any good. In this section I also added that you should apply moisturizer in a thin layer so that your skin is still able to breathe.Kayap1 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

sourcing
I was actually in the process of undoing my last edit, but is questionable but at least better than the other unreliable, spam source. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'm fine with using a different source. It references a newer study with more information, so that works out. Sorry about the confrontation. ImmunoFrontiers didn't strike me as an unreliable source at first glance... the information was verifiably accurate and it didn't seem like a puff piece. But after a closer examination, they don't have a lot of information about who writes the articles and their credentials. My goal just was to use a secondary source that refs a primary research paper on the topic, but avoid any direct citations to primary research papers. --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Humectant-moisturizer source
I made this edit, stating that the source is outdated and needs a review in its place. This 2001 primary research in guinea pigs is the source in question. It is 23 years out of date, with no confirmatory review since, and was a study of moisturizing in the presence of an oil - a further complicating factor for the content of the questionable sentence.

WP:BURDEN states that the editor wishing to add or defend content needs to provide an appropriate source, WP:MEDANIMAL, preferably a reputable review. We do not have such a source. Zefr (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)