Wikipedia:Featured article review/Antioxidant/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC).

Antioxidant

 * Notified: WT:MCB and WT:PHARM

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it objectively fails WP:FACR criteria 1b (comprehensiveness), 2a (lead section), and 2c (consistent citations).


 * Issues with 1b: There's poor coverage of synthetic antioxidants in the article's Antioxidant section, which lacks context. Notable plant-derived antioxidants are completely missing from this page (e.g., Quercetin, among many others in this topic's navbox and which are mentioned in general-purpose reviews like ).  Mention of a class of dietary antioxidants (polyphenols) is, however, scattered throughout the article. There is a "Further information" link to articles about dietary antioxidants (Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols and List of antioxidants in food) under Antioxidant, but this is a very brief section which contains no information on plant-derived antioxidants. Some antioxidant biomolecules are entirely omitted (e.g., melatonin).  Thus, the article does not currently comply with criterion 1b because these are highly notable subtopics within the scope of "antioxidants" that are not covered or even alluded to (e.g., via passing mention) in the article.
 * By far the most significant omission in this article is the lack of coverage of the transcription factor Nrf2, the master regulator of cellular antioxidant responses.
 * Issues with 2a: The lead is very short for an article this size and inadequately summarizes several parts of the body. As an example, the 4th paragraph is a 1-sentence long summary of an entire level 2 section.
 * Issues with 2c: The citation formatting is inconsistent. This is the least significant problem with the FA criteria and is easily fixed. I mention it only because it needs to be fixed along with the 2 other issues above.

I attempted to address some of these issues on the article's talk page at Talk:Antioxidant, but was met with opposition. That said, at least one other editor has indicated that they think this article no longer meets the criteria. In order to start resolving the issues this article has with the criteria, the lead needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize and be consistent with the body, the body needs to be significantly expanded (including the creation of an entirely new level 2 section) to include the subtopics mentioned above (plant-based and synthetic antioxidants) that are missing but well within this article's scope, and the citation formatting needs to be fixed.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 22:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Re 2c: I fixed the date formats in this edit; however, in the current revision (Special:Permalink/849739302), page formatting is inconsistent in the journal refs (some are truncated like 123–6, some list the full page range like 123–126), some of the web references are missing publication/update dates which are listed on the cited webpage (e.g., ref numbers: 2 and 189), and some (e.g., ref number 2) are missing publishers.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 02:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include coverage and citation formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Levels in food section is not up to FA quality. Vague statements about cooked versus raw, then dismisses ORAC (correctly) as flawed because it is an in vitro assessment, but goes on to name and reference other in vitro methods. I have refrained from working on the article because of COI (consultant to dietary supplement companies that market products with antioxidant claims), but in my opinion this article no longer qualifies as FA, given progress in the science literature. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delist. Confusing and self-contradictory. The lead says supplements of beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E have no effect on mortality rate or cancer risk, while the Adverse effects section describes studies showing an increased mortality and increase in lung-cancer rates. DrKay (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delist, much as I hate to say it about a TimVickers original. I read the article and thought "hm, this reads like it was written ten years ago", then I looked at the FAC and discovered it was written 11 years ago. It's fallen out of date and has had some bitrot issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.