I am One of Many (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
Before you revert content, it would be wise to read the edits. The material removed was biased and made by 3rd party pharmaceutical companies promoting their own products. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Local4554|Local4554]] ([[User talk:Local4554|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Local4554|contribs]]) 01:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Before you revert content, it would be wise to read the edits. The material removed was biased and made by 3rd party pharmaceutical companies promoting their own products. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Local4554|Local4554]] ([[User talk:Local4554|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Local4554|contribs]]) 01:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:Actually, as far as I can see, this is not what you are doing at all. You are removing all reliable sources that have failed to find benefits of resveratrol. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
:Actually, as far as I can see, this is not what you are doing at all. You are removing all reliable sources that have failed to find benefits of resveratrol. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Here is a quote from one of your "reliable sources": <sub>Abstract |
|||
'''Rapamycin was administered in food to genetically heterogeneous mice from the age of 9 months and produced significant increases in life span''', including maximum life span, at each of three test sites. Median survival was extended by an average of 10% in males and 18% in females. Rapamycin attenuated age-associated decline in spontaneous activity in males but not in females. Causes of death were similar in control and rapamycin-treated mice. Resveratrol (at 300 and 1200 ppm food) and simvastatin (12 and 120 ppm) did not have significant effects on survival in male or female mice. Further evaluation of rapamycin's effects on mice is likely to help delineate the role of the mammalian target of rapamycin complexes in the regulation of aging rate and age-dependent diseases and may help to guide a search for drugs that retard some or all of the diseases of aging.</sub> <ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20974732</ref> |
|||
This is clearly promoting the product "Rapamycin"! |
Revision as of 03:45, 13 February 2014
Resveratrol was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1000 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Tone and sources
Per WP:MEDMOS:
Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation. Always omit professional titles and academic degrees: use "Smith" or "Jones" rather than "Dr Smith" or "Prof Jones"
— Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Citing_sources
I have therefore removed many of the details about "when, where, and who" performed the studies to focus on "what" the studies say about resveratrol.
Also Wikipedia articles should not read like scientific review article. In fact, per WP:MEDRS, we should not be reviewing the primary literature ourselves, but rather rely on secondary sources. Most of the sources currently in this article are primary. These should be replaced with secondary sources where possible. Boghog (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Links to relevant secondary sources may be found in the "Ideal sources" box at the top of this talk page. Boghog (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Contradictions in section about varying quantities in wine
This section:
starts with a table showing Pinot noir as having almost no reservatol, and then a paragraph saying that "trans-resveratrol concentration in 40 Tuscan wines ranged from 0.3 to 2.1 mg/l in the 32 red wines".
But then the section ends with a paragraph that says "wines made from grapes of the Pinot Noir and St. Laurent varieties showed the highest level of trans-resveratrol, though no wine or region can yet be said to produce wines with significantly higher concentrations than any other wine or region."
That seems contradictory to me (Pinot noir has none but it has the most, and there's variation from 0.3 to 2.1 but there's no variation). Is one correct and one wrong? Or am I misunderstanding? Maybe I don't understand the difference between reservatol and trans-reservatol.
Which brings me to my last issue: after reading the explanation in Reservatol#Chemical_and_physical_properties, I still don't know if the good stuff is trans-, cis- or if it has to be plain non-prefixed reservatol.
Any improvements to the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Gronky (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've also skimmed the mentions of "Pinot Noir" in one of the cited papers [1] and I don't see anything to back up the numbers in the table of [[content levels. Can anyone review that data? Gronky (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
How many studies?
While proofreading, I found a grammar problem called number agreement at Resveratrol#Sirtuin activation: "Some of the benefits demonstrated in previous studies were overstated,[115][116] however, this study was challenged immediately,[117] and a few experiments were suggested to be of inferior quality.[118]" "this study" refers to "previous studies", so are there studies or just one study? Should it be "previous study ... this study", "previous studies ... these studies", or "previous studies ... one of these studies"? 98.247.55.21 (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Massive blanking
Like at stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, seen here and here, "More eyes on the Resveratrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article are needed. New editor Local4554 is repeatedly blanking material at the article without justifying his edits, and despite warnings not to do so." Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Reverting without Reading the Article
Before you revert content, it would be wise to read the edits. The material removed was biased and made by 3rd party pharmaceutical companies promoting their own products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local4554 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, as far as I can see, this is not what you are doing at all. You are removing all reliable sources that have failed to find benefits of resveratrol. I am One of Many (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Here is a quote from one of your "reliable sources": Abstract
Rapamycin was administered in food to genetically heterogeneous mice from the age of 9 months and produced significant increases in life span, including maximum life span, at each of three test sites. Median survival was extended by an average of 10% in males and 18% in females. Rapamycin attenuated age-associated decline in spontaneous activity in males but not in females. Causes of death were similar in control and rapamycin-treated mice. Resveratrol (at 300 and 1200 ppm food) and simvastatin (12 and 120 ppm) did not have significant effects on survival in male or female mice. Further evaluation of rapamycin's effects on mice is likely to help delineate the role of the mammalian target of rapamycin complexes in the regulation of aging rate and age-dependent diseases and may help to guide a search for drugs that retard some or all of the diseases of aging. [1]
This is clearly promoting the product "Rapamycin"!