From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Articles for improvement  
WikiProject iconThis article was selected as the article for improvement on 25 December 2017 for a period of one week.
The collaboration began with this version and improved the article to this state (difference).
WikiProject icon
Start C   This article was improved from Start-Class to C-Class

The above assessments refer the article quality at the time of the TAFI collaboration, and should not be altered to reflect subsequent changes! (Further information)

Pre-improvement B-Class criteria checklist:
Checklist icon
Post-improvement B-Class criteria checklist:
Checklist icon

Merger proposal[edit]

I think that Essential nutrient should be merged into this article. The material there is better structured (at least with regard to human nutrition) and it's a case of WP:OVERLAP with the essential nutrient section of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle MoJo (talkcontribs) 16:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree. Bad enough that Wikipedia has Nutrition, Human nutrition and Animal nutrition without the additional overlap of Nutrient and Essential nutrient. David notMD (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The content of "Essential nutrient" logically fits in the subsection here by the same name. Should be an easy manual merge. --Zefr (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm uncertain about whether or not to merge the two, but Essential (biology) should be merged into Essential Nutrients. It doesn't seem to be more than demonstrating a layman's definition of the word - saying mitochondria are essential to life is hardly specialist vocabulary. Whenever I've seen it used in a biological context it's meant in the sense of essential nutrients. -- (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I also agree with IP user regarding article Essential (biology). I think it should be a redirect page to article Nutrient or perhaps better, to a subheader Nutrient#Essential if the article Nutrient becomes more structured and receives a subheader distinct like that. --Treetear (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Neither this article nor the essential nutrient article (prior to the merger) was long enough to merit a separate article on that sub-topic with WP:Summary style coverage in this article, so...   checkY Merger complete. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Selected as article for improvement[edit]

As an article that gets 25,000 visits per month, this is skimpy, under-referenced, meandering, has useless images, neglects to cover the nutrient needs of protists, fungi and plants in favor of animals, and lacks links to most of the articles that provide more depth and referencing: Nutrition, Vitamin, Mineral (nutrient), Protein (nutrient), Lipid, Carbohydrate, Dietary fiber... David notMD (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I replaced all of lead. My background is human nutrition, so we need people contributing who have a good grasp of animal, plant, fungi and protist nutrient needs. Help! David notMD (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@David notMD: The lead is supposed to summarize the content in the body of the article (see MOS:LEAD#Provide an accessible overview or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE#Lead section), so you should probably either revise the current lead accordingly or cover the missing concepts from the current lead in the body. Also, I don't know if the definition of organic vs inorganic compounds differs in the context of nutrition, but those terms are normally used to describe compounds the contain one or more (=organic) or lack any (=inorganic) carbon atoms. So, I think a definition should be given before listing examples of each. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The Lead was such a hodge-podge I figured start there, see how everyone addresses the body of the article. then loop back to modify the Lead. If there is a better definition of organic (versus inorganic), let's use that. My thought behind what I wrote was molecules made by organisms versus minerals. David notMD (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the goal? At the start of this Article for improvement effort the metrics were length 15,000 bytes, C-class (really, more like Start), and under 20 citations. In comparison, "Nutrition" tops 100,000 bytes, is currently B-class (Was a Good Article 2006-2009), and has 118 citations. "Nutrient" does not have to aspire to that for length and citation count, but ideally should gain in length and quality to justify a rating of B-class. David notMD (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

B-Class rating[edit]

Provided that the 6 citation needed tags are replaced with a suitable reference, this article really only needs relevant supporting material/illustrations to merit a B-class rating. One of the images from Special:Permalink/816956065 or one of the subcategories of Commons:Category:Nutrients could probably be used to address this (NB: most of the images in the main/parent category for nutrients on Commons seem irrelevant to this page). Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Right now I trying to flog Milk allergy from C-class to Good article. When that dust settles I will try to get back to Nutrient. Personally, I would like to see more on animal nutrition, especially what we have done to our domestic food animals. David notMD (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancies in table[edit]

In two cases, the table shows minimum recommended intakes which are higher than the recommended maximum, albeit from different sources. This appears to be nonsense, and in my opinion the whole table needs to be thoroughly checked. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The table is correct. The two nutrients you question are magnesium and niacin. For both, the UL addresses adverse effects if those amounts are consumed at one time as a dietary supplement. For magnesium, the adverse effect is diarrhea. For niacin, it is flushing of the face and a sensation of increased body warmth. I will add footnotes to the table clarifying this. From looking at your Talk and your Contributions on your User page, this is a new area for you to be involved in. Please be conservative in your changes to the article. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That appears to be complete nonsense. Would you say that the typical consumption of these nutrients was above the maximum limit or below the minimum limit? (or maybe both!) Whatever your answer, why are the adverse symptoms not frequently experienced? ----Ehrenkater (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The only way to experience magnesium or niacin adverse symptoms is to take a high-dose supplement. In the U.S. (at least), it is possible to buy high dose supplements, and there are warnings on the labels of adverse effects. Which may be experienced. The risk of adverse effects does not preclude selling high-dose dietary supplements. David notMD (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Added new column to table for EU PRIs (same concept as RDAs). This is to show that for recommended intakes, as for safe upper limits, governments do not necessarily agree. The EU does not believe chromium is an essential nutrient! Because in Japan, people eat a lot of iodine, the government sets safe intake five times higher than the EU!! David notMD (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The section on Essentiality does not mention Carbohydrates. Logically, they should be classed as conditionally essential (if they are only relevant when other macronutrients do not supply sufficient calories), or non-essential, or, like alcohol, "non nutrient", providing only calories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The article on choline states that it IS essential. It has been reclassified as essential by the USDA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Choline is in the table as essential. For US and Canada, there is not enough information to set an EAR or RDA, but there is enough to set an AI. David notMD (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)