Talk:Red yeast rice/GA1

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

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 22:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I will be taking a look at this article. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This review is based upon Other notes: in the "safety" section, the article has "Ingredient suppliers have also been suspected of "spiking" red yeast rice preparations with purified lovastatin. As evidence, one published analysis reported several commercial products as being almost entirely monacolin K - which would occur if the drug lovastatin was added - rather than the expected composition of many monacolin compounds.". Why would they do that? Would be it cheaper to include synthesized pharmaceuticals rather than natural red yeast rice? I was left confused by that, but there's no approprate GA criteria category to put that question under. 'Yes, cheaper to add synthetic monacolin K to a red yeast rice product made with a yeast M purpureus'' strain that has no natural monacolins content (proper use as a food coloring agent) than to use the bioactive strain. "Spiking" of dietary supplements with drugs is a common problem with supplement ingredients sourced from China.''' Following up on this (doesn't affect the GA status, and you don't even need to answer). Why? Is the M purpureus strain that produces natural monacolins harder to obtain, harder to propagate, more time consuming to actually produce the monacolins than it is to produce the coloration that simulates the real deal? Might be a good point to include in the article, if you know (I don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer). RecycledPixels (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I will leave this open for now in case you want to dive into improving the article starting with what I've listed, but if you don't have the time, I can close it and you can re-nominate it later. I'm aware of how long the GA backlog is, however, so I don't mind putting it on hold. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not close it. This GA nomination has been waiting for a reviewer for a very long time. I will tackle all the review comments as fast as I can. David notMD (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It can stay open as long as you need, please leave me a note when you want me to do a re-reading.  The examples I listed in the areas to be improved were intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive, so if you tell me you are ready for me to re-read the article, I hope you will not assume that once you clear up the items I have specifically identified, that I would think the article is ready.   I am watching this page as well as the article page and I can see the improvements you are making to the article, but am not adding or revising any of my comments until you tell me you are ready for me to come back and take another look. I'm willing to work on this article in my role as long as you are in your role- it's a good subject matter that I find interesting. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Second review
This second review is based upon as it appears on 15 August 2019. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have ended up needing to deal with several real-life issues that I had not anticipated when starting this review, and that looks like it will continue for at least the next several weeks and it has meant that the amount of time I have available to contribute here is severely limited. I have requested a second opinion in case someone else is free and can take over for me, but my current situation means it is unlikely I can give this article the attention it deserves at the moment. If nobody else has been able to pick it up in the time between now and when I come back, I will of course resume the review. I apologize for the unanticipated delay. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am back from the real world and am ready to undertake this review. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)