From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleAntioxidant is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 22, 2007.
Article milestones
October 19, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
September 8, 2018Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article



I'm certain others at WT:MCB would agree with my assertion that, ignoring all other issues in this article, the lack of coverage of this transcription factor (Nrf2) constitutes a lack of compliance with WP:FACR 1b. It's like failing to cover Antioxidant#Examples of bioactive antioxidant compounds or Antioxidant#Enzyme systems in this article.

If anyone is interested in taking on the challenge of preserving this article's FA-class rating, this needs to be added; ideally, the section on this should include a table analogous to the one for ΔFosB in Addiction#Reward sensitization with rows for Nrf2's transcriptional target genes which encode an antioxidant protein and columns that specify the target gene, effect on target expression, and something like target function or cellular effects. Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning NRF2 doesn't seem unreasonable but the proposed table on gene targets sounds like it might be unnecessary duplication of material in the NRF2 article and excessive detail for this article. It would seem that a wikilink might suffice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Nrf2#Target genes isn't a comprehensive list of its gene targets and, more relevant to this article, it's not a comprehensive list of its antioxidant gene targets. Conveying a gene target, effect on target expression, and the cellular effect of a change in target expression is more suited to a data table than prose, hence why I said that's the ideal format. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not quite understanding. Are you proposing to have a list (i.e., a table) of NRF2 gene targets in this article that's more comprehensive than the one in the article on NRF2 (i.e., Nrf2#Target genes)? Bear in mind that NRF2 isn't an antioxidant but rather a regulator of antioxidant gene expression, which is why I opined that it was reasonable to mention it here but not to go overboard with detail. The proposed table sounds like excessive detail to me, at least for this article; perhaps not for the NRF2 article. Also, are there one or more good sources that include such a list or table or is this something that would be cobbled together using a number of primary sources? That could again be a WP:SYNTH issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
This article isn’t comprehensive if it doesn’t explain why and how Nrf2 is a “master regulator” of cellular antioxidant responses to oxidative stress. Hence, this article’s coverage of Nrf2’s transcriptional targets needs to cover every gene target which encodes an antioxidant protein. Nrf2#Target genes lists just 7 groups of transcriptional targets and several of them aren’t even relevant to cellular redox activity.
I can’t imagine that a primary source would cover all of Nrf2’s transcriptional targets. There’s a textbook and a review article on Nrf2 cited in one of the sections above. Could start there. Could alternatively use a gene DB. I don’t intend to look for additional sources on this or write about it. Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, I don't disagree with summarizing the why/how aspect but I am not convinced that this article necessarily needs to cover every gene target in a table with the level of detail proposed, given issues with excessive detail, synth, WP:OR etc. That might be more appropriate for the NRF2 article rather than this one; or at least, that would be the logical place to start, no?
To which textbook/review article on NRF2 were you referring? Creating the proposed table de novo from a gene database could be thorny with respect to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:MEDRS. But again, I'd say that the NRF2 article would be the best place to start with that before tackling it here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Your argument seems no different than arguing that a drug's medical uses should be covered in the disease articles and its pharmacodynamics in its biomolecular targets' articles ... because too much detail and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH (I don't really follow you on that last part). Your argument about fleshing out Nrf2 first would be reasonable if it weren't for the fact that this article is (nominally) a featured article. In any event, there's only 1 other section on this page that mentions Nrf2, so search that word and you'll find it.
A table of Nrf2 gene targets and the encoded antioxidant proteins is just a "Table of antioxidant proteins". Examine how an actual FA-quality article on a set of proteins covers relevant proteins: Serpin#Human. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
So far no one is contesting removal from FA, so ringing that alarm bell is not necessary. I agree however, that this page should discuss nrf2; the content here should probably just be a copy/paste of the lead of that page, with refs added, WP:SUMMARY/WP:SYNC. The place for detailed information about its functions and the various transduction pathways should be there, not here. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, I'd be satisfied as long as the word "Nrf2" is somewhere in the article provided that it's demoted to a B-class article. An article with a Featured article in the top right corner, however, should go into far more detail on literally every major subtopic than would be expected of a typical Wikipedia article. I don't think the Nrf2 article will ever contain a comprehensive list of its targets given that it regulates over 1000 genes in mice (per [1]); it's just not feasible to cover them all in that article. Per PMID 23294312 (specifically, the supplemental file: [2]), there's only about 2-3 dozen antioxidant protein coding gene targets though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: I wrote my reply on my phone yesterday and wasn't prompted with an edit conflict. Frankly, I had no idea that Jytdog replied before me and wouldn't have removed it intentionally (that should be obvious given that he's agreeing with me about this article in the reply above). I don't know why you assumed the errant deletion was intentional, but I figure I'll just template you the same way you did me. Facepalm Facepalm Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted but do try to b more careful in the future. FYI, he was agreeing with me not you (i.e., include a very brief summary of NRF2 but not the table you proposed). How you could have come to the opposite conclusion suggests that you're either not paying attention of being WP:TE for the hell of it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The only reason I created this section on the talk page is to emphasize that this article isn't FA-quality if Nrf2 isn't mentioned. If this article isn't an FA, I'm not particularly inclined to continue arguing about including a table of gene targets because its quality rating doesn't necessitate its inclusion. That's why I said he's agreeing with me. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)