Talk:Protein

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to the numerous unsourced statements, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone willing to address these issues? Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Protein

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Several unsourced statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added {{citation needed}} to the statements that seemed to be most obviously needing references, to aid in the process of cleaning up the article. I never got too far in molecular biology so forgive me if I can't completely fix this up to GA standards. I also noticed (as Smokefoot did specifically with the use of "key") that the tone of this article is unusual. Reconrabbit 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - I've done some tidying, fixed an error or two, and added refs @ all Reconrabbit's citation needed tags. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a basic biochemistry article. We do not need to add citations for facts that can be found in any textbook. Genome42 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Genome42: No, WP:V says that information needs to be cited. Textbooks can be used as the citation if it is a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Basic facts about proteins fall into a "sky is blue" situation; you would either be laughed at or shown very concerned looks for your well-being for challenging them. Still though, this article does cite textbooks and other round-ups for most of these things anyways as it is still specialized knowledge at the end of the day.

I was wondering though, is there some policy or guidance on how to select a textbook for referencing out of the hundreds (thousands?) that exist with the same information? I ask as a high-traffic article like this might unfairly elevate one textbook over others, inadvertently. Should textbooks be prioritized for referencing by ease of access? Are there even open-access textbooks kicking around for biochemistry/science topics generally? Is this something that Wikipedia is even concerned about? ― Synpath 17:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Synpath: SKYBLUE is an essay, which says at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." WP:V is a policy, and "describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow." To select which sources to use, the WP:MEDCITE essay will give some advice. More recent sources are more favourable than older sources as it will have the most up-to-date information. For articles with a lot of literature like this, sometimes Wikipedia has to pick some of the highest quality sources and exclude others. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• WP:MEDCITE is only an essay, which says at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." and is not really relevant to a basic biochemistry article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• I think I should have piped the phrase "still specialized knowledge" to WP:NOTBLUE to balance the emphasis of my comment. Regardless, MEDCITE doesn't give advice on how to select one reliable source from a sea of reliable sources saying the same thing. Just opting for the most recent textbook is not an ideal solution if no one can read it without dropping a hundred dollars or more (being generous there). ― Synpath 19:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Synpath is correct. We do not need to add citations for obvious facts. Overcitation is a problem on Wikipedia because it makes articles difficult to read. Perhaps Z1720 could show us what bits of information he thinks should require citations by inserting tags after every bit of information in the introduction?

The issue about which textbooks to use is also a problem. I'm a biochemistry textbook author so, as you might imagine, I have definite opinions about which textbooks are the best ones to cite. :-) Surely we don't want citations to four or five different textbooks after every sentence in the introduction?

I marked the article with citation needed tags where I thought they were needed. Information only needs to be verified by one source, so that will solve the overcitation concern. The lead of the article doesn't need citations, per WP:LEADCITE, as the information is supposed to be the body of the article (and cited in the body). Z1720 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 Thank-you for inserting those citation requests. I disagree with all of them but it helps focus the discussion. I don't think we need a citation when there's a link to another article that explains the topic. Genome42 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Genome42: Per WP:CIRC, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source and the reader should be able to verify the information in the protein article without going to another Wikipedia article to find the source the verifies it. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 Gimme a break! The citation you want inserted is a textbook reference. How many readers have that particular textbook at hand in order to verify that "The field of bioinformatics is now indispensable for the analysis of genes and proteins" or that isopycnic centrifugation is a useful technique? There are times when Wikipedia's picayune rules get in the way of common sense. Genome42 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Genome42: Editors do not have to ensure that every reader has access to a source. Rather, the source has to verify the information if someone looks it up. If Wikipedia policies are against common sense, editors can propose changes at Wikipedia:Village pump. Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Some comments

Really nice article, with suitable coverage. The following points might be considered even if this article is granted FA status.

• Lede paragraphs need to cite some big-time biochem textbooks.
• For me, the tie-in to nutrition is not very relevant to understanding proteins. That section then goes on about essential amino acids, which is very tangential topic. Instead, this section should focus on digestion, which is a core aspect of proteins, how are they broken down? Peptidases. Industry conducts large scale hydrolyses to make some amino acids.
• Could not understand this phrase: “As interactions between proteins are reversible and depend heavily on the availability of different groups of partner proteins to form aggregates that are capable to carry out discrete sets of ..”
• A few places refer to “researchers” (which makes researchers seem like a caste-system). Usually such phrases can be recast to remove the term “researcher”
• Heavy use of “key”. If nature uses something, it is key. So, often “key” is superfluous.
• Heavy use of amino acid residues. Possibly somewhere the distinction between aa’s and their residues should be mentioned.
• Prosthetic groups/cofactors are barely mentioned (or I missed it). My sense is that most proteins have these components (like the image of myoglobin).
• The abundances of proteins could be mentioned. It is often stated that RuBisCO is an abundant protein because it is so inefficient as a protein. Anyway some sense of the protein inventories of various cells.
• Health: are proteins used as vaccines or medicines.

--Smokefoot (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"Proteen" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Proteen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 22 § Proteen until a consensus is reached. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)