Talk:Folate/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 14:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am happy to review this article for GA status. Typically, I will go through and make general comments as I read, and then tackle the specifics with a checklist after those things have been worked through. Canada Hky (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

This was an interesting read, thanks for the nomination. My initial thoughts are that this article defaults to treating folate / folic acid as a supplement, rather than a chemical compound / vitamin / nutrient. This isn't necessarily a massive roadblock, it just gets confusing at some points. To illustrate - starting with the second sentence in the lead, we are already talking about how it is administered and RDA, not what it does, and why it might be administered. This carries over into the construction of the article as well. The information about what folate "is" and what it does is a bit scattershot around the article. We jump right into health effects, but without having any information about mechanisms, structure etc - the article doesn't build on itself. I don't know that a significant rewrite would be needed, but definitely some reorganization.

Specific comments

No copyvio detected.
Images all look good, and appropriately captioned.
The note about the derivation of the name is in the lead, but nowhere else. Typically, the lead shouldn't contain stand alone information.
In the definition section, all the alternative named are cited except the last one.
The preliminary paragraph of "Health effects" isn't really an intro, and it really isn't a summary either. It's almost a mechanism of action, but not quite. I would suggest combining it with the biological roles, and moving the entirety of that section to the start of the article.
"Folate is necessary for fertility in both men and women. It contributes to spermatogenesis." Suggest a change to this wording. Going back to the original article, I can see that they comment on female fertility as well, but if all you mention here is spermatogenesis, that doesn't reflect female fertility.
"Taking folic acid over years reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease by 4%" - in who, what dose, how many years? And 4% is meaningless without a bit of context. For a lot of these statements, I have to go back to the original article to find out what is being talked about. Try to add a bit more information, so the reader can grasp the main points without pulling up the original article.
In the "cancer" section - the last three references are all meta-analyses. It may be giving undue weight to call the last one out specifically in the text. It implies the first two are not. If the third study made any comments as to why they came to a different conclusion, that may be helpful.
"The reason for the difference is that at least 85% of folic acid is estimated to be bioavailable when taken with food, whereas only about 50% of folate naturally present in food is bioavailable" This sentence is not clear. Does it mean that 85% of supplemental folic acid is estimated to be bioavailable?
Starting in the dietary recommendations section, but also throughout the article - make sure if you are introducing an abbreviation, it is used later. Otherwise, just leave the abbreviation out - COMA and USDA for sure, but there may be others.
In the Biological Roles section, the chemical nomenclature is confusing, as the standard F would be fluorine. Are the abbreviations strictly necessary, since they aren't conveying structural information?
Three sections in the Biological Roles section are unreferenced.
Food fortification - why is supplementation italicized in the middle of the paragraph?
Also in this section, the text refers to a "Toxicity" section, which I don't think exists in this version of the article.
sometimes day is abbreviated, and sometimes it isn't. Since it isn't really a standard unit of measurement, writing it out each time is probably best, but either way, it should be consistent.

This is what I noticed on a first pass. If anything isn't clear - please let me know, and I will try to help. I am going to put this on hold. If you think it will take longer than 7 days to make all adjustments, I have no issues with that. Canada Hky (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors comments

This article has almost zero information on what folate actually does. The biology section is atrocious and need a major rewrite to clearly distinguish between its biosynthesis and function. I will see what I can do to fix this. Long before folate was a dietary supplement, it was an enzyme cofactor essential for life. I also take issue for putting health effects before function. Function puts health effects in context. Boghog (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the section more carefully, there is some useful information. However the section heading are very misleading and I believe function should proceed biosynthesis which should proceed medical uses. Boghog (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to jump into a section being actively edited, but if you'd like a hand with the biology section (per Boghog's comments above), ping me and I'm happy to spend some time on it. I'm glad to see folks putting time into such a key biochemistry topic. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boghog and Ajpolino Yes, please add to Biological roles section. Just don't trip over each other. I was going to expand, using Present Knowledge in Nutrition 10th edition, but will work on the other shortcomings first. As per order of sections, please do not move Biological to top of article. For most of the vitamins, Function precedes Biology, the reason being that the majority of readers are more interested in function. David notMD (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biology is (in part) function. The first paragraph of what is now labeled "health effects" is in fact function/mechanism (as already pointed out by Canada Hky above in "Specific comments", fifth bullet point) and should be relabeled as such. The only exceptions are the second and third last sentences of this paragraph which are misplaced were moved to the pregnancy section. Placing function before health effects makes it understandable why folate has the health effects it does. The current "biology" section is a mishmash of topics including biosynthesis, metabolism, and function. Boghog (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current health effects lead paragraph provides a high level cellular/physiological overview of function. I split biology into what I think are more descriptive and logical headings: (1) chemistry, (2) biosynthesis (3) metabolism, and (4) function (which contains a more detailed molecular description compared to health effects paragraph). I hope this is OK. These new sections should be expanded further. I will continue to work on this. Boghog (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the GA reviewer to keep this on Hold for a week before continuing with the GA evaluation. David notMD (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working through the initial bullet points (above). David notMD (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: Thanks for your offer to help. I think I am finished editing for the time being (I will be busy in real life). The Function section I think could use some more work. If you could contribute to this or any of the other sections, that would be great. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finalizing review

Thanks everyone for all of your work! I am going through everything now. As a bookmark to myself, I have reviewed through the "Cancer" section, with only minor edits, which I have completed myself. Canada Hky (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reference for the last section of the "anti-folate chemotherapy" section - about the substitution of folic acid for folinic acid causing side effects. Without a ref, it kind of feels like an anecdote. Canada Hky (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed[reply]
In the last section of "bioactivation", is that supposed to be "1C pool" or should it be "C1 pool". C1 makes sense as a position, but I can't find any appropriate context for 1C, and I don't want to assume it is a typo. Canada Hky (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed[reply]
In Dietary Recommendations, the section below the table - EARs has not been defined anywhere I could find in the text with search. AI appears in the table, but I cannot find the definition for that either.Canada Hky (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed[reply]

I can't find any good source for the side effects caused by folinic acid except for databases (see for example metabocard HMDB0001354). PMID 14963199 states that folinic acid can reduced the effectiveness of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis treatment (I can't find anything specific about chemotherapy), but says nothing about severe side effects. Hence the statement about folinic acid side effects appears dubious and unless someone can provide an reliable source to support this statement, it should be removed. Boghog (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Since I cannot find a reliable source to support the statement, I went ahead and removed it. Boghog (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed[reply]

1C is an abbreviation for one-carbon. I have adjusted the text accordingly. Boghog (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doing reference checking and removing/replacing when refs do not pertain to the text. Done David notMD (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Templated review per checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Thanks to everyone who contributed to this article. There has definitely been a lot of work done, and improvements made to the article. I appreciate the collaborative nature in which everyone chipped in and made improvements! I don't have a lot of comments to make about the items in the template, because I think everything has been addressed in the discussions that we have been working on over the past couple weeks!
Pass/Fail:

Bioactivation

Is part of metabolism and thus IMO would make a good subsection of that. Biosynethesis would also fit there IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolism is based on chemistry and therefore to understand the metabolism, you first need to define what is being metabolized. A logical flow starts with Chemistry (that defines the folate family of structures) → Biosynthesis (how its made) → Metabolism (how it is activated) → Function (what it does). Placing a short chemistry section before metabolism is not going to cause the earth to stand still. Boghog (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biosynthesis could be considered anabolic metabolism. But please keep in mind that folate anabolism does not occur in humans and other animals. Boghog (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has the following organization (with justification):

Chemistry (a short section that defines the chemical scope of the folate family also defines the numbering scheme (especially positions-5 and -10) which is referred to extensively in Metabolism below)
Metabolism
- Biosynthesis (refers to substructures which have been defined in the chemistry section above.)
- Bioactivation (the diagram assumes that chemistry section has already been presented above, note especially the R-group shorthand)
- Drug interference
Function

Boghog (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me User:Boghog. Agree chemistry is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Chemistry really bothers you, we could rename it as Nomenclature. Please also note that folate is a primary metabolite and as such, it has not attracted much attention from synthetic organic chemists. Hence it is very unlikely that this section would ever include laboratory synthesis. Boghog (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Other possibilities are "Chemical nomenclature" or "Chemical scope". Boghog (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE, not "Nomenclature" or the other offered options. For non-chemists, "Chemistry" works just fine. Those readers can skip the dry-science parts and just go straight to the diseases and the purported perils of fortification. David notMD (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke and Cardio and Cancer

Both sections in process of being revised. As exist either citing old refs or missing more of the recent refs. David notMD (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke section replaced. David notMD (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer section replaced. David notMD (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you introduce relative / adjusted risk, either via wikilink or appropriate text to put the numbers in a more proper context? Its not "I'm 10% less likely to have a stroke", it's 10% of the previous risk. Canada Hky (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added sub-section on relative versus absolute risk. Revised Safety section. Still need to revisit Heart disease section. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced Heart disease section. Please wait until after Friday before restarting the GA review. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were does the ref say

"Neural tube defects are present in 0.035% of U.S. births.^[1] A one-third reduction would change that to an absolute risk of 0.023%, a 33% decrease in relative risk."

References

^ "Neural Tube Defects (NTDs): Condition Information". National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, U.S. National Institutes of Health. 2017. Retrieved 30 November 2017.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is positioned for the NTD percentage. The information about 1/3 reduction would mean absolute risk of 0.23% and relative risk of 33% is original research. It's mean as an example of the distinction between the two. David notMD (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute versus relative risk

I do not think we need a seperate section to explain this. Explanation can go in the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I amended what you added to the Stroke subsection to clarify that the example being used to explain risk is the Li article, and does not include the other two meta-analyses. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[NIH2017Def-1] "Neural Tube Defects (NTDs): Condition Information". National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, U.S. National Institutes of Health. 2017. Retrieved 30 November 2017.

[1]