Talk:CYP4F2/GA2

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

Nominator: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 21:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Femke (talk · contribs) 19:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

This is one of the oldest outstanding articles to be reviewed, and I can understand why. A highly technical topic, with a lot of work put into it. Unfortunately, I don't think it's ready for the limelight.

• I noticed quite a few sourcing issues, enough for me to unfortunately fail the article.
  • A couple of sentences were copied from https://omim.org/entry/604426#cloning, which is not released under a compatible license
  • You say that the CYP4F2 is expressed in a host of different species, whereas the source talks about CYP4F22 and CYP4F
  • You say "as of 2024" using a 2021 source, which of course cannot tell you anything about more recent years.
  • In another place, you do the same with a 2023 source etc.
  • I think the Vitamin E source bears out, but it is not explicit in linking it to bioavailability (it says it determined the rate-limiting step)
  • One paragraph is left without a source
  • The bullet points in the background sections (which are well written), are not cited individually, but cited to 3 sources at the end, making verification too complicated.
  • Citation 6 is a bare url
  • I cannot find in UniProt (citation 23) where it says malpighian tubules
  • In the same source, I cannot find the methodology you describe "For example, one study used a computational approach"

• Not quite a requirement at GA, but considering the size of papers you cite, it's best practice to cite page numbers. It's exceedingly difficult to spot check long technical text.
• The article strays from WP:summary style in places. The subsection on the CYP4F subfamily details a lot of complicated functions of both some members in the subfamily, but also members of CYP4X. More general statements alone would work better here. This makes it tough for readers to digest the article, and places a high maintenance burden on the article.

• In terms of WP:MTAU: the article in places assumes too little background knowledge (such as enzyme), whereas in other places it assumes too much. I imagine most of the readers here will understand the very basics of biology such as enzymes. The first paragraph doesn't make clear why this is an interesting enzyme, and talks too much about genetics. I've removed a couple of unnecessary Latin words
  • You're introducing abbreviations without using them again, which makes it more tough to read (like FLAP)
  • In terms of WP:EXPLAINLEAD, I would keep the lead focussed and remove "CYPs are involved in cellular metabolism, hormone synthesis, sterol and cholesterol metabolism, and are critical in maintaining homeostasis, a process by which an organism can maintain internal stability while adjusting to changing external conditions."
  • leukocytes (white blood cells) --> no need to say 'leukocytes' here. The wordier the lead, the more tough it is to understand
  • Why are you saying 'This enzyme'? Use elegant variation with 'the enzyme' and its name
  • At a very minimum, jargon needs to be linked, which isn't happening consistently. For instance, it's not happened in "human liver microsomes and enteric microsomes". What is enteric? And a microsome?

• There are many one-sentence paragraphs (which should be avoid per MOS:PARA, part of MOS:LAYOUT and there is WP:PROSELINE in the history section. I'm not sure why you choose these articles for the history section.
• There are issues with structure. For instance, vitamin E is described both in "CYP4F2 within the subfamily" and in its dedicated subsection.
• The ortholog Cyp4d2 is an ortholog of a whole range of CYP proteins. Is it due to describe it in such detail? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)