Talk:Vitamin
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vitamin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
| Vitamin has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Choline
[edit]Vitamin J redirected to Choline until I just now changed it to redirect to the obsolete name chart at Vitamin#Naming. That chart lists Catechol and Flavin for Vitamin J, but not choline. Should choline be added, or was that simply a long-standing error? I'm having trouble separating reliable web sources from AI slop. One reliable source I could find was . It just says "Finally, vitamin J: Beneficial to guinea pigs but unneeded by people, it didn’t make the cut." and does say which compound that refers to. I couldn't find anything about guinea pigs on the three compound articles. -- Beland (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Government Regulation
[edit]The article refers to "Title 21, part III" when it intends to refer to part "111" - the section of the Code of Federal Regulations relating to current Good Manufacturing Practice for dietary supplements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-34015-53 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Improving top-importance medicine articles: Join the Vital Signs campaign 2026
[edit]The goal of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026 campaign is to bring all 101 top-importance articles—including this one—up to at least B-class quality. Many of these articles are widely read but overdue for review, so even small improvements can have a big impact.
If you watch or edit this article, your help would be very welcome. You can:
- Add yourself as a participant
- Note the state of the article in the Progress table (is the current class still correct?)
- Update the article based on recent clinical guidelines and review papers
- Help address gaps, improve clarity for a broad audience, or improve image selection
To reach B class, articles should have: suitable referencing, reasonable coverage, a clear structure, good prose, helpful illustrations, and be understandable to a broad audience. Contributions of any size are appreciated. Femke (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
"controversial cancer treatment laetrile"
[edit]Not exactly "controversial" is it? wikis own article on amygdalin says "Scientific study has found them to not only be clinically ineffective in treating cancer but also dangerous due to the considerable poisoning risks.[3] The promotion of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the medical literature as a canonical example of quackery[4][5]" Suggest change to something like "ineffective cancer treatment" ~2026-11424-16 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- GA-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- GA-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- GA-Class Molecular Biology articles
- Unknown-importance Molecular Biology articles
- GA-Class MCB articles
- Top-importance MCB articles
- WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles
- All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
- GA-Class Dietary supplement articles
- Top-importance Dietary supplement articles
- GA-Class Food and drink articles
- Top-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- GA-Class medicine articles
- Top-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
