Talk:Vitamin E

Good article nomination?

I had nominated this for GA review in March 2018, then withdrew the nomination in June 2018, as no reviewer had taken up the task. I intend to renominate it after Thiamine goes through the GA process. If that succeeds, it will be the 11th vitamin I've raised to GA, leaving only E and D. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

And I meant to add, all improvements to the article are welcome. David notMD (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

US Preventive Services Task Force review

@David notMD I have come across this source [1] I think it is high-quality and would belong on the article. I have not got full access to the source but there is also a press release about its findings [2]. The review concluded "The USPSTF also concludes with moderate certainty that there is no net benefit of supplementation with vitamin E for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer." Do you think we should mention this in the "Cancer health claims" section? Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy I agree. It's a review of a huge amount of lit by an authorative group in a high quality journal. Go ahead and add it, or if too much trouble, I'm willing to do it. P.S. Not relevant to the topic, but father and one brother psychologists, another brother and two sisters-in-law MSW therapists in private practice. My spouse arts therapist. Our daughter a coach for artists with ADHD. David notMD (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the response, I would appreciate if you could add it in as you would be better at summarizing the source than me. Looks like your family is well qualified. My dad is a psychologist as was my grandfather, I did study it but dropped out to everyone's disappointment. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

text with ref for PMID 35727271 added to cancer and cardio subsections in Research. David notMD (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Refs update

Checking for newer refs for the Research section David notMD (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

GA nomination

Nominated. Now (waiting for a reviewer) is a good time to improve the article. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vitamin E/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 04:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this, always glad to see a Vital Article come through here. Immediately, I am worried about the handful of citation needed tags and the glaring number of sentences that are missing sources. I will keep the review open for now (until 12/15), since I am familiar with the general quality of your work, but I won't go much further until these issues are resolved. Once this is resolved, we can discuss a time frame for the rest of the page. I understand these topic can take time, vital articles tend to be a long haul. Thankfully, my degree is related close enough to this topic (Human Biology) for me to give a relatively technical review of the article. Etrius ( Us) 04:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Please use a  Done, strikethrough or some other means of indicating an issue is resolved..

Images

• File:Tocopherols.svg
• File:Tocopherol, alpha-.svg
• File:Beta-tocopherol.png
• File:Gamma-tocopherol.png
• File:Delta-tocopherol.png
• File:Tocopheryl acetate.png

Technically, there is nothing inherently wrong with this copyright. That being said, a structural formula copyright (see File:Alpha-Tocopherol Structural Formulae V.1.svg) is more accurate. No other issues noted with the copyrights.

Copy-vios

• I'll continue to make spot-checks as this goes on.

Earwig only flags 3-4 word proper nouns and phrases that really can't be reworded.

Sources

The missing citation issue has been raised above.

•  Done Prasad K (2011). "Tocotrienols and cardiovascular health". Current Pharmaceutical Design. link should be added

Prose

• All the external links have been checked, they are still live.
•  Done The see also section should be cut, Tocopherol & Tocotrienol are already linked

Intro

•  Done Vitamin E deficiency, which is rare and usually... move to the end of the paragraph
• No'2,000 mg' convert template (ounces for all the Americans in the room)
• Fixed 'The authors' either specify or generalize
• No; all vitamins have hitory as last paragraph of Lead Frankly, the second paragraph should go at the end. It is chronologically out of order.
• Fixed Does the 3rd paragraph need to be on its own? It is a single sentence and works better at the end of paragraph 5.
•  Done Both natural and synthetic tocopherols... Move to end of paragraph
•  Done Specify in the beginning that there are 5 tocopheryles, 4 natural and 1 sythentic (tocopheryl acetate)

Chemistry

• The nutritional content... move to later in the paragraph, it doesn't make sense to introduce a RRR configuration before explaining methyl groups, adding to the end would work.
• R" sites You and I know what this means but specify this is a functional group. I can potentially read like its a chiral center
• 'stereoisomers' If memory serves, this is not the correct term. I get what the page is going for, in respect to the tail, those specific segments are stereoisomers (enantiomers, diastereomers, etc). That being said the structures of each type of tocopherols, as a whole, are not isomers. Perhaps 'phytyl tail chirality' or 'stereochemistry' would be more accurate.

Furthermore, why is this its own section? Tocotrienols subsection breaks down the stereochemistry within its own section

• 'reaction from continuing' be more specific. I assume Vitamin E acts in a fairly specific way as a reducing agent. I would help drive home the biological importance if more specificity of what the lipid radicals damage.
• 'electrophilic mutagens' so, acids. Radicals, are generally electrophilic, seems a bit WP:TECHNICAL. This also implies these radicals act on DNA, which would be good to mention.

'unique properties' Technically, nucleophile-electrophile rxns are stupidly common, and by definition pretty much all radical breakdowns are nuc-ele reactions. The sentence as a whole sounds nice but isn't really saying much.

• 'hydrophobic side chains' you mean unsaturated side chains, saturated side chains are also hydrophobic
• Palm oil is a good source of alpha and gamma tocotrienols out of place sentence
• two corresponding centers This should be reworded
• There is plenty of space, why not add the 4 Tocotrienols' structures to the box?
• which would have a 2S rather than 2R configuration at the molecules' single chiral center redundant, also a bit confusing since it hasn't been established prior that dextrorotatory = R.
• unlike synthetic dl-alpha-tocopherol keep the terms consistent. Also, is this needed? perhaps saying an S config is theoretically possible but not commercially made gets the point across just fine.

Function

• Vitamin E affects gene expression Needs to be expanded significantly. A cursory search has turned up a number of sources

Biosysthesis

• chemical family of compounds made up of four tocopherols and four tocotrienols reword

are 'tocochromanols' the general classification for all vitamin E? Only in plants? This isn't clear why new terms are being brought up

• and plants that through mutations have lost the ability to synthesize α-tocopherol demonstrate normal growth. reword sentence, order of ideas is confusion
• 'normal synthesis capacity' specify
• ' reverse is true' specify
• 'same article mentions' not encyclopedic wording, needs to just be stated in a matter-of-fact way
• 'Focusing on tocopherols' same as above
• 'caustic soda' link
• ' The synthetic has 73.5% ' The synthetic version has...
• extra '</ref>'

Deficiency

• nerve problems reword to neurological problems

Dietary recommendations

• Fixed The Japan National Institute of Health.. sentence is clunky
• Fixed '...is an outlier' could be misconstrued as subtle WP:POV. I don't disagree, still recommend rewording to make this wording is simpler
• Most countries do not have vitamin dietary recommendations Overall, this section is very well written. I'd love to see more countries represented.

Sources

•  Done Worldwide, consumption is below recommendations according to a summary of more than one hundred studies... repeat sentence, cut the preceding sentence or reword.
• common form found in the North American diet any other diets/continents?

Metabolism

• 'vitamers' I feel like this an important term that should have been brought up sooner
• and all of the vitamin E vitamers are metabolized and then excreted via urine. unclear on what this means. I assume this means un-excreted bile.
• so this appears to be a means of disposing of excess vitamin E I would hope urine is an excretory process. Rather redundant info
• 'chiral 2 site' 2nd chiral site reads better
• A rare genetic defect of the TTPA gene results in people exhibiting a progressive neurodegenerative disorder known as ataxia with vitamin E deficiency (AVED) despite consuming normal amounts of vitamin E. Large amounts of alpha-tocopherol as a dietary supplement are needed to compensate for the lack of α-TTP repetitive, cut
• As an example of a result of the preferential treatment, the US diet delivers approximately 70 mg/d of γ-tocopherol and plasma concentrations are on the order of 2–5 µmol/L; meanwhile, dietary α-tocopherol is about 7 mg/d but plasma concentrations are in the range of 11–37 µmol/L Info is out of place

Testing for levels

•  Done section is arbitrary. The info could be split between Dietary recommendations and Deficiency

Research

•  Done Rename section to 'health effects' or something in that same vein
• Removed text, as it was interpretive, i.e., original research For the conditions described below... What is the purpose of this paragraph. It reads more like a disclaimer than a wiki article.

• Shortened This whole section seems to be going a bit too much in depth on the studies, especially the 'cancer' section. I get the need to explain but breaking down methodology isn't really necessary. Try to keep this focused on the health effects. As a whole, this section should be pared down
• Not possible to have a ref for what the EFSA has not done, so sentence removed The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviews proposed health claims for the European Union countries. As of September 2022,, EFSA has not evaluated any vitamin E and cancer prevention claims. missing citation

There are a number of instances where I'd love to see more coverage on other countries, or at least mention that other countries do not have dietary recommendations. On a broader scale, I am concerned that there is a no 'function' section. The Anti-oxidant function is buried in the chemistry section and the specific functions are spread amongst the entire article. This make it somewhat difficult to get a read on what Vitamin E actual does. This review was a beast but here are the first set of edits. I'll put this on hold but there is going to be some serious legwork ahead. Etrius ( Us) 05:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD, any update? The review has been live for a week now and I don't see any progress made (assuming you aren't drafting something). Do you have an idea of when you'll get around to this? I understand that this is a long one and the holidays are coming up so I'm more than willing to accommodate. Especially with Vital Articles, I'd love to see them pass, but I do expect you to be actively working on it if able. If something is unclear in my recommendations, please let me know either here or in the talk page discussion. Etrius ( Us) 19:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overly broad conclusion from reference 10

The following statement in this article:

There is use of vitamin E in skincare and wound-treatment products, but no clinical evidence that it is effective.

Uses reference 10 as support.

Reference 10 merely examined the question of the whether or not the topical use of Vitamin E during wound healing improves the cosmetic appearance of scarring after healing. There is no mention of any other potential benefits such as healing rate, inflammation reduction, or reduced infection rates.

There may still be no clinical evidence of any benefit from topical application of vitamin E. But, this reference is not sufficient support to come to that conclusion. Seanmcd27 (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Canola oil / Rapeseed oil

The section Sources lists foods and their mg of vitamin E/100g of the food. But it lists "Canola/rapeseed oil" as 44 and "Canola oil" as 17.5. Clicking on the hyperlinks – canola, rapeseed, and canola oil – takes one to these pages: Rapeseed oil, Rapeseed, and Rapeseed oil again. The Rapeseed oil page quotes the 17.5 figure – but not as the α-tocopherol content, simply as vitamin E content – and cites fdc.nal.usda.gov. The Rapeseed one doesn’t list contents.

The section says “The last major revision was Release 28, September 2015.”. The USDA website says that release 28 is not going to be updated, and that this data is to be found via the Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS). (So instead of typing in the food and seeing the values for it, one has to download a 6Mb spreadsheet and search in it!)

Going to the cited site, fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/748278/nutrients, one can read that canola oil’s vitamin E content is made up of four of the eight vitamin E compounds, and it gives these averages, again in mg/100g: α-tocopherol, 17.3 ... γ-tocopherol, 41.3 ... δ-tocopherol, 1.48 ... and β-tocotrienol, 8.07.

And going to the FNDDS site, it confirms the 17.3 figure, but not the other three, which it doesn’t mention.

So why is α-tocopherol used as a proxy for vitamin E content? Why the 44 figure for "Canola/rapeseed oil"? And why this 17.5 figure, and not 17.3? It appears that there could be a mistake somewhere along the line, or at least, a bit of confused explanation. If there isn’t, a sentence of explanation would help, I.M.O. Nick Barnett (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Omega-6 interactions

A key concern with vitamin E is its relationship with readily oxidized linoleic acid. This fatty acid is unstable but associated with vitamin E. Hence, linoleic in the diet confounds research based on 'independent' changes in vitamin E doses or those that achieve vitamin E through the diet via ingestion of vegetables. Further, oxidation of linoleic acid is likely to manifest in chronic diseases that may take a decade or so to arise. Few studies have been designed with these mechanisms in mind. Another confounder is the intake of vitamin C, which provides 'recharging' of vitamin E that has neutralized an ROS. Finally, with its brain and muscles, the human body represents a substantively more oxidizing condition than that found in plants, and it is reasonable to entertain the idea that the humans need more vitamin E relative to plants. Drmartz (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

All of that is your personal opinion, not supported by any medical reviews that we can cite on Wikipedia. Your comments about linoleic acid and manifestation of chronic diseases is a typical conspiracy theory talking point promoted by carnivore diet and low-carb diet influencers, it isn't supported by any good medical evidence. We have an article on Linoleic acid (LA) which notes consumption of LA is associated with a lowered risk of CVD. This review looked at tissue levels of of linoleic acid on over 68k people for 31.9 years, the results found that higher levels of LA were significantly associated with lower risks of total CVD, cardiovascular mortality, and ischemic stroke [3]. So your comments are not correct. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This is quite interesting because I do not have a personal opinion about 'all of that.' I am citing verifiable facts, not assembling them, as far as I know. The molecule called cardiolipin is known to be less stable when constituted with linoleic acid versus DHA. Certainly, the science behind DHA is well known. These same conditions apply when cell membranes need to be populated with a higher frequency of DHA versus linoleic acid as is a well known condition in neurons. Vitamin E is a critical anti-oxidant for linoleic acid. This is also well known, and since it is packaged with omega-6 fatty acids when it arrives in whole foods, how could it not represent a confounder? If you check with any of the GPT models, they will confirm the particulars. I wasn't intending to sound like the whole picture was clear, merely that these are reasons why studies of the effect of vitamin E tend to be inconclusive or contradictory. I am a bit confused by your reference to medical evidence. Most of my comment was about known metabolic pathways and can be confirmed on Wikipedia, so it is biological, not medical. Does basic biology not count? 2603:8000:683E:4000:B069:6F36:B9E6:EBDA (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but nobody cares about your personal opinions, nor mine. We need WP:RS. You are using this talk-page as a forum. If you have no references to cite and improve this article you are just wasting your own and other editors time here. We only go with what reliable sources say on this topic and yes most of these will be from medical reviews or textbooks. If you believe studies on the effect of Vitamin E are inconclusive that is your opinion, we can't cite that. As stated we need good sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hoping to cool the temperature here. In response to "Does basic biology not count?" Every article needs references. If there is a relevant Wikipedia article, a Wikilink can be made to it, but if there is referenced content in that article it should be copied - along with refs - into the vitamin E article. A statement along the lines of "oxidation of linoleic acid is likely to manifest in chronic diseases that may take a decade or so to arise" must have WP:MEDRS references in support. Same for "it is reasonable to entertain the idea that the humans need more vitamin E relative to plants." David notMD (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

section out of date

Vitamin E#Declining supplement use stops over a decade ago, leaving the reader on a cliffhanger. does anyone have the updated info for this, please? 173.222.1.148 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried several search methods and could not come up with newer data. David notMD (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Although prescriptions are not indicative of total consumption of a vitamin widely available as a non-prescription dietary supplement, analysis shows that prescriptions for vitamin E are small compared to Vitamin D and folic acid. The vitamin E history of prescriptions does not go back further than 2013, so it does not show what was likely a decrease from circa 2003 to 2013. See https://clincalc.com/DrugStats/TC/Vitamins David notMD (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Prior to renominating this article for GA, a Pubmed search limited to meta-analyses and systematic reviews yielded recent articles that I am incorporating into the article. For exercise recovery there were two journal articles with conflicting results. PMID 38346687 reported no post-exercise recovery benefits. PMID 35458161 reported some benefits, but these were detected via subset analysis for trained athletes over non-trained, and for lower dose supplementation over higher dose. The latter article was published in Nutrients, which is published by MDPI, which has been criticized as a "predatory journal publisher." I chose to not include the second ref in the addition to the article. David notMD (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Also beginning to address the comments from the abandoned GA review. This will continue into October, with an intention to then resubmit to GA. David notMD (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Nominated for GA review 10/10/2024. I had initiated a GA review in Dec 2022 but then abandoned the process after the reviewer proposed changes. I have recently been addressing those comments and intend to finish before a new review starts. David notMD (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The 2022 comments included a request that overly detailed descriptions of the reviews and meta-analyses cited in the Medical Applications section be cut while retaining the references. David notMD (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see this is back at GA. Best of luck!!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vitamin E/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: David notMD (talk · contribs) 21:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ChopinChemist (talk · contribs) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll be happy to review this article. Let me know if you're ready for feedback. Given that the article has been reviewed before, my assessment will mostly based on what caused the article to fail in the last review and see if there are any other changes necessary. I may also ask you some questions regarding the article so I have a better understanding of what you're trying to convey. Note that the GA review process box above will not start until you're ready for feedback. ChopinChemist^Talk? 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Previous GA

• More coverage on other countries.

YProvided

• 'Function' section. Rationale: Anti-oxidant is buried while specific functions are spread out

YProvided

Current GA

MoS compliance

Lead section

• Vitamin E is classified as an essential nutrient for humans... The first sentence should define what Vitamin E is and following that would be the sentence that determine its significance to humans (since Vitamin E is a human nutrient is pretty common knowledge)

(ex: Vitamin E is a group of eight molecular-structure related compounds that include four tocopherols and four tocotrienols. It functions as a fat-soluble antioxidant which may help protect cell membranes from reactive oxygen species, and is classified as an essential nutrients for humans... ).

Y Order of content in first paragraph of Lead revised. 09 Nov David notMD (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• The lead section should also address function of tocotrienols, since the first two sentence of the article mentions tocopherols and tocotrienols but only address tocopherols' function. If no known function available then it should still be mentioned as such, but I highly doubt that's the case.
• Declining use was theorized to be due to publications of meta-analyses that showed either no benefits or actual negative consequences from high-dose vitamin E.[8][9][10][11][12], :Try to specify which paper mentions no benefits to vitamin E and which mentions negative consequences. These two claims are pretty substantial so inline citation is a must.

Y Ref placement changed so as to distinguish between the refs that reported no benefits from those that documented negative consequences. David notMD (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Layout

• The sections Serum content definitions of deficiency and Vaping-associated lung injury seems out of place and should be incorporated as follows: Serum content definitions of deficiency to Deficiency and Vaping-associated lung injury to Medical applications

Serum content definitions of deficiency incorporated into the Deficiency section. I disagree that Vaping-associated lung injury should be relocated to Medical applications, as MAs are intentions to prevent or treat, whereas vaping injuries was an unintended consequence of a manufacturing decision. David notMD (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledged. You should add a parenthetical expression for Vitamin E acetate since Vitamin E acetate it is only mentioned in that paragraph and it helps with minimizing confusion. If i'm correct then vitamin E acetate is similar to tocopheryl acetate, so here's an example to do so: "The CDC stated in February 2020 that previous research suggested inhaled vitamin E acetate (tocopheryl acetate)"ChopinChemist^Talk? 03:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Y Section on Vaping-associated lung injury revised accordingly. Also, Wikilink to CDC shifted to first sentence. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Words to watch

No words of concern

List incorporation

Appropriate use of lists

Citations

• for For comparison, vitamin C remained constant and vitamin D increased by 454%. If addressed by source [60] nearby than you may delete this. See comment below
• There is evidence that use and sale of vitamin E supplements has decreased by up to 53% in the United States between about 1998 and 2006. This sentence is incorrect; it should be as follows per source: "There is evidence that the sale of vitamin E has decreased by up to 33% following a report showing little or no effect of vitamin E in preventing cancer and cardiovascular disease"

Y Text changed. David notMD (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• The sentence For comparison, vitamin C remained constant and vitamin D increased by 454% should be removed since the source:[4] only focus on active duty members and may not reflect society as a whole. The sentence is also inconsistent with the last, as 454% refers to increase is in Vitamin E prescription (use) rather than both prescription and sale, which is what the sentence before addresses.

Y sentence and ref removed. David notMD (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Add citation for the image showing synthesis of tocopheryl acetate (Synthesis>Biosynthesis) as there are many ways a compound can be synthesized. If no source is available then image should be removed.

The synthesis image is from Commons, described as "Own work" by account Yikrazuul (2008) David notMD (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've read through the synthesis part and noticed that the synthesis from the diagram corresponds to the Industrial Synthesis part, and the source [5] also addresses the use of acetic anhydride from the diagram so I will waive this requirement for now. ChopinChemist^Talk? 01:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Some references of concern: Ref [108] is from a Rolling Stone article, which is considered unreliable for political and social news . Suggested source to replace (from New England Journal of Medicine): https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1916433 from New England Journal of Medicine.

Y Replaced RollingStone ref with NEJMed ref. David notMD (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Individual comments

Drug interactions

• Consumption of alpha-tocopherol as a dietary supplement in amounts in excess of 300 mg/day may lead to interactions with aspirin, warfarin and cyclosporine A in ways that alter function.. Add tamoxifen per source: "Consumption of high-dose vitamin E supplements (≥ 300 mg/d), however, may lead to interactions with the drugs aspirin, warfarin, tamoxifen and cyclosporine A that may alter their activities "[6] and remove source [1] (Vitamin E fact sheet) since that source does not support the info above.

Y For the second sentence, added tamoxifen and removed the use of the Fact Sheet ref. David notMD (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Dietary Recommendation

• India recommends an intake of 8–10 mg/day. For all ages? If so then the detail should be included.

Y replaced ref for 2009 draft report with ref for 2020 final report, specifies 7.5-10 mg/day for adults David notMD (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Remove: Worldwide, consumption is below recommendations according to a summary of more than one hundred studies that reported a median dietary intake of 6.2 mg per day for alpha-tocopherol.[4]. Already mentioned in "Dietary Rec." Also remove Palm oil is a source of tocotrienols.[17] as it seems out of place. Instead discuss if tocotrienols play a role in diet. Should incorporate into a separate table that describes natural source of tocotrienols, unless very few natural sources contain tocotrienols then you can list them in a sentence.

Y Removed text. Also removed from table the duplication of an entry for canola oil. Still need to address tocotrienol sources. David notMD (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Y There is not enough information of tocotrienol sources to justify a table. Text and two refs copied from Tocotrienol. David notMD (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Medical applications

• Expand Age-related macular degeneration section by following other section's style of writing. Example include starting with "A research showed..."

Y Text revised to provide more information on the nature of the reference and the conclusions of the review. David notMD (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD:More feedbacks coming soon. Also ping me if this is addressed.

Status changed to  On hold.ChopinChemist^Talk? 21:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

ChopinChemist I have addressed the initial set of comments and the follow-ups on those. Please ping me if there are more comments that will need to be addressed before making the GA review decision. David notMD (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

David notMD Overall you have done a great job at incorporating my feedback into the article. I did provide some more feedback and if you are able to address them at your convenience, then this article will definitely get a GA status.ChopinChemist^Talk? 21:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ChopinChemist Some family complications intervened , but I intend to address all the outstanding requests today, and then if there are any new, or follow-up called for on existing, work quickly through those. You patience appreciated, and also you pointing to potential replacement citations, which is more help than I've received on other GA nominations. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I want to try providing sources so my GA review doesn't sound unconstructive. I don't fail articles when I review them unless they need to be quick failed. ChopinChemist^Talk? 15:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I have addressed the remaining comments. Please ping me if any more revisions needed. David notMD (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

David notMD I have waived the request to add source to the photo. However, the first paragraph of the lead section doesn't address tocotrienol in detail even though it is mentioned along with tocopherols (and tocopherol's function is discussed). Reading through some literature, I found that tocotrienols are often neglected so should there be a way to discuss this? Source:

Tocotrienols: The Emerging Face of Natural Vitamin E

Tocotrienols: Vitamin E beyond tocopherols

This is just an idea that you can consider. ChopinChemist^Talk? 02:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I put in some time reviewing (and editing) the Tocotrienol article plus the meta-analyses and systematic reviews on tocotrienol. Based on this, I revised the Tocotrienol section in Vitamin E. CK Sen (the author of the two reviews you listed) has published on tocotrienols spanning 2000-2020, including those reviews and a similar review dated 2011 (PMID 22013739). I concluded that his reviews were not reference-worthy for either the Vitamin E or the tocotrienol articles, as his work was in vitro and animal research. In my revision I included human research meta-analyses or systematic reviews from Rafique 2024 (PMID 38948984), Li 2022 (PMID 33909529) and Khor 2021 (PMID 34297765). David notMD (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my feedback and incorporating it into the article. Overall, the article is very detailed, and you have done an excellent job of incorporating my feedback and going beyond the line of duty to improve the article. I will grant this article the GA status. Congratulations and I look forward to seeing more vitamin GA articles from you (maybe even a Good topic for Vitamins).ChopinChemist^Talk? 23:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outside opinion

I saw this page in the GAN list and had to take a look for such a big topic.

It is my opinion that this page far exceeds the GA criteria now, and that minutiae such as discussing specific compounds in detail, are not necessary for GA status. When this inevitably comes up for FA review, that may change, but I feel it is time to award GA. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion about the quality of the article. The review process has identified weak references, oversights, unneeded digressions, etc. It has been a long-term (2016 onward) goal of mine to raise all of the vitamin articles to GA status. Vitamin E will be the 12th, leaving only vitamin D. As to whether these have achieved quasi-FA quality, probably not. Earlier this year I proposed vitamin C for FA, having completed GA in 2017, and was declined after scores and scores of edits and back-and-forth with the group of FA reviewers. I have not yet decided whether to return to C or start in on D. Either will be a long, hard task. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, thank you for doing so, even if FA status was ultimately rejected. It is an important thing - although they of course should not do so, many government agencies, programs, and even academic institutions will use pages like that in ways that will concretely impact the life and health of their populace. I hope you know that even without a shiny badge, people appreciate your work in improving topics like these which are so important and impactful that many of us fear to so much as touch them. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

GA review - dates

Ready to start (just back from travels). David notMD (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that vitamin E acetate, used as a thickening agent in illicit, non-tobacco, vaping cartridges, is suspected as being a cause of lung injury?

• Source: Ref 107-112 in the vitamin E article confirm that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) believes that vitamin E acetate is a likely cause of vaping lung injury.

ALT1: ... that Vitamin E was named "tocopherol" from the Greek words "tókos" and "phérein" meaning to birth and to bear or carry, as the compound was initially identified as being essential for live births in rats.

• Source: Ref Evans 1938 in History section confirms origin of 'tocopherol'.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Gandey
• Comment:

Improved to Good Article status by David notMD (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 16 past nominations.

David notMD (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC).