Talk:Vitamin K

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Editing for possible GA nomination[edit]

Starting August 26, editing the article before deciding to submit a Good Article nomination. Starting with looking at all references, with attention to any that are not WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaced Methods of assessment subsection. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Changed section order to match order in vitamin articles that are Good Articles. David notMD (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Copyright check: three sites (m,blog, Youngevity Wiki, Mays3.weebly) show >95% probability of match. Very likely these are copies of Wikipedia rather than the other way around, as they all appear to have content that was in the July 2015 version of the Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Replaced Absorption section. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Added Definition section (such a section exists in vitamin articles that are Good Articles). David notMD (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Nominated for GA review on September 21. Article will continue to be edited while awaiting review. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Replaced K1 sources table. David notMD (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Added K2 sources table. David notMD (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

An editor has agreed to conduct a GA review, but is waiting on my notification that I have completed my pre-review edits. The Chemistry and Research sections still need work. David notMD (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Research section revised. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 09:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @David notMD for your many edits to this article!! I will review this article against the six good article criteria. I'm an active medicine and anatomy editor and you can see my GA reviews and also articles I have helped write to GA standards there. I can see that you're still planning on moving through and adding references to the article on the talk page, so I will put this review on hold and please ping me when you're ready. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I will fiddle with WikiGnomish tweaks to help the article along. Thanks for picking up the review task, Tom. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The term "food-sourced" is used as a noun but it looks like an adjective. Should we tell the reader what is food-sourced? Perhaps at the first instance.
  • One of the dash-related changes I made was to use an en dash in the formulation "Vitamin K–deficient". This is because the hyphen of "K-deficient" is not appropriate when there is a space in the modifier, which in this case is "Vitamin K", not just "K".
  • The "Chemistry" section had a tag asking for more citations but it doesn't apply any longer, after recent improvements. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • What do you think of using the fraction template in the food table, for instance changing 1/2 cup to 12 cup? It's a very minor thing. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Tom (LT) and Binksternet Let's do it! I revised the Research section. OK with me to remove the tag on the Chemistry section, but I will be trying to replace or supplement animal references with human if possible. Yes to the fraction symbol for half-cups. I will look over the various uses of -sourced. Issue is any need to distinguish among from plants, from animals, from synthetic. I am very much looking to see what fresh eyes bring to this article (my sixth vitamin GA nomination). David notMD (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Please check this diff to see whether I got the science right while I was tweaking the English regarding "food-sourced". Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes to that. And thanks for doing the fractional 1/2 cup. David notMD (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi David notMD, just checking that you've seen my comments below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Will start to get to today. David notMD (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Review by Tom (LT)[edit]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Overall fairly well done, however some areas are difficult to read due to use of acronyms.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. At the moment, some areas lack citations. Also, if possible, areas with several citations provided could be trimmed.
2b. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. One or two citations are reaching the terminal end of their usefulness (See comments)
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Checked with Earwig's
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

{{GATable/item|5|y| }

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Verified
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.


Thanks for your edits to this article - overall it's looking good and it flows very well. As some general comments, I think readability could be improved by replacing with full words acronyms that are only used a few times.

With regards to reliability, there are around 5 - 10 sentence or paragraphs that lack citations. Also, there are a number of statements that are pretty general or noncontroversial that I conversely think need less citations (having many citations for this sort of thing also impacts on verifiability). I have marked this in my last edit. [1] Sometimes I marked a paragraph or sentence with a single tag even though a few sentences in that paragraph may need attention.

In the next day or two I'll comment more specifically on prose, do a copyvio and image check.

Overall the article is very close to GA standard. Lastly please see my points as points for discussion rather than as absolute dictats - I am happy to discuss with you as we go. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio and image check completed without issues.
Regarding prose - the only thing I'd request at this juncture apart from the issue of some acronyms would requesting you try and use the "Convert" template ({{Convert}}) for 'oz'. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll put the review on hold until the above concerns are addressed. Because choice of citations will impact on reliability and probably prose, I'll wait until citations are provided to comment on prose; apologies for doing it in this piecemeal fashion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Addressing comments[edit]

  • Addressed all Excessive citations tags. Net change was reducing from 92 to 85 references. David notMD (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I didn't want to plaster the article with too many such tags, so there is still some work left. Could you perform a general sweep of the article (except for the Research section, where I do agree more than one citation is often needed)? There are still quite a few instances of single sentences that are not controversial that have two citations. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Removed a few more refs; to 82 refs before beginning to address eleven "Citation needed". David notMD (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Creation and use of acronyms greatly reduced. David notMD (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks, great. Please see the "Dietary recommendations" section, still has a large amount of acronyms that should be put into words. For example: The EFSA and Japan AIs are lower than the U.S. RDAs. Also I note that there is inconsistent use of your acronym formatting, some acronyms have period marks ("U.S.") but others don't. I suggest replace all acronyms with their full text except for "US" (without period marks), and consider if the terms you do use such as "recommended daily intake", "upper limit" etc. can be decapitalised for ease of reading.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Further reduction of the acronyms in "Dietary recommendations" section. David notMD (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • All Citations needed resolved by either new refs, existing refs, or removing text that a ref could not be found in support. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks David notMD for updating this review; I follow the page here, so no need to double up on my talk page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for addressing the above concerns. The content of what you have written is excellent, I only have some minor concerns regarding this - but I think the article is difficult to read because of some structural and organisational elements - definitely happy to discuss if you have alternate points of view, but my concerns are:

  • I find the article's structure somewhat confusing; for example:
    • the article launches straight into telling the reader about deficiency and recommended intake without really telling them what the vitamin is or does or where it is naturally sourced from
    • bits about warfarin are scattered about this article; I personally think that this should be placed in the warfarin section as the primary topic of the article is Vitamin K
  • I think some bits need moving around as you'll see below
      • REPLY: Warfarin consolidated.David notMD (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Definition
    • ""Vitamin K" refers to several forms of this vitamin, i.e., an essential nutrient absorbed from food, a product synthesized and marketed as part of a multi-vitamin or as a single-vitamin dietary supplement, and a prescription medication for specific purposes" took me several readthroughts to understand your meaning. Could it be simplified (maybe changing the 'ie' to 'including'?)
    • "(figure)" - uncertain which figure
    • wikilink quinone
    • a lot of this section seems to be more like an introduction or overview as compared with a definition, as you talk about sources and how it's used which really should be in other sections I feel
      • REPLY: Location of figure stated. Quinone and side chain out of quote marks, and quinone Wikilinked. Removed content that did not belong in Definition (and is covered elsewhere).David notMD (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Vitamin deficiency
    • "Secondary vitamin K deficiency". I am having trouble understanding what you mean by secondary. It seems like disorders of intake (bulemnia, stringent diets, anorexia) and absorption (inflammatory bowel disease, abdominal surgery) would surely be primary?
    • Suggest wikilink "prothrombin" and reword hypoprothrombinemia to "low prothrombin levels" because that's easier to understand
      • REPLY: In a nutrient deficiency context, consuming too little of the nutrient is considered primary; any condition that that causes a deficiency state despite adequate intake - such as malabsorption - is secondary. Text revised to make the distinction clear. Text also revised to be more clear on what defines vitamin K deficiency. David notMD (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Dietary recommendations
    • Please decapitalise adequate intake, RDA and EAR
    • Replace "IOM" with "institute of medicine" as that's much easier to understand
    • "(known as ULs or "upper limits")" --> " (known as "upper limits") as you don't use the acronym.
    • "U.S. FDA" --> "US FDA", and standardise
    • "ages 19 and up " --> "and older"
    • "It is still used as a supplement in animal foodstuffs" --> "some foodstuffs" (surely not all)
      • REPLY: IOM deleted as defined acronym and subsequent uses now Institute. Adequate Intake, Estimated Average Requirement and Recommended Dietary Allowance remain capitalized because there are the official terms. UL removed as acronym because not used subsequently. U.S. became US. Changed to "and older". Changed to "some foodstuffs." David notMD (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Sources
    • This section needs an introductory statement that states in general K1, K2 and where they occur, plants vs. animals
    • "†Animal-sourced foods contain small amounts of vitamin K1 but these and a few fermented, plant-sourced foods, natto being the best example, contain vitamin K2. " sorry, I'm unclear what this means
    • This should be moved to your warfarin section: "For people prescribed warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist, while some of these plant sources are high in vitamin K1, medical advice is not to avoid these foods entirely (except perhaps boiled collard greens, spinach and turnip greens), but rather to keep vitamin K intake as consistent as possible, so that the combination of vitamin intake and warfarin keep the anti-clotting activity in the therapeutic range.[19]"
    • This sentence needs to be simplified and explained slightly more for lay readers: "For vitamin K from plants, the tight binding to thylakoid membranes in chloroplasts makes it less bioavailable, whether raw or cooked, compared to the vitamin in a dietary supplement.[3] "
    • This fact needs some introduction "Nattō, made from bacteria-fermented soybeans, is a rich food source of vitamin K2 MK-7.[6] Animal-sourced foods are a source of vitamin K2 varients MK-4, MK-5, MK-6, MK-7, MK-8, MK-9, MK-10 and MK-11.[20][21] "
      • REPLY: Introductory statement added. Text below Vit K1 table removed. Warfarin mention moved to warfarin section. "Tight binding" content simplified and moved to absorption section. David notMD (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Medical uses
    • I suggest adding the subsection "Anticoagulation", with an introduction to warfarin in that section as something that blocks the downstream action of Vitamin K
    • The current starting paragraph should be moved to the rodenticide section: "Vitamin K is also part of the suggested treatment regime for poisoning by rodenticide (coumarin poisoning).[22] Vitamin K treatment may only be necessary in people who deliberately have consumed large amounts of rodenticide or have consumed an unknown amount of rodenticide. Patients are given oral vitamin K1 to prevent the negative effects of rodenticide poisoning, and this dosing must sometimes be continued for up to nine months in cases of poisoning by "superwarfarin" rodenticides such as brodifacoum. Oral Vitamin K1 is preferred over other vitamin K1 routes of administration because it has fewer side effects.[23] "
    • "Treating newborns" should be renamed, I think, to something like "In Newborns", because Vitamin K is not used for treatment, but for prevention as you state
    • Managing warfarin therapy - suggest you state explicitly how it works near the start of this subsection, as htis is important in relation to Vitamin K. Also, suggest you split the section into two - one part about stable dietary intake, and the second paragraph in relation to reversal
    • "Treating coumarin (rodenticide) poisoning" suggest remove 'coumarin' from the title as it seems like this is stating coumarin = rodenticide, when in fact coumarin is also an oral anticoagulant.
      • REPLY: Per GA review comments, Rodenticide content consolidated, newborns subsection title changed, warfarin content now two paragraphs, and coumarin removed from subsection title. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Chemistry
    • "presence of a phytyl group" - could phytyl be wikilinked?
    • " Three forms not found in nature are K3 (menadione), K4, and K5. K3 is used in the pet food industry.[31] K5 is used to inhibit fungal growth when sprayed on foods.[32] " - should this be placed in the 'uses' section instead of 'chemistry'?
      • REPLY: "Phytyl" does not appear useful as a Wikilink, as it redirects to Phytane. Phytol does not appear useful either. Sentence reworded. David notMD (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Biochemistry - this section is really well written! Makes some quite complex concepts fairly easy to understand
    • I suggest merge this section with 'physiology' as they seem to be the same and biochemistry is by far more easy to understand
    • Move measurement out of this section - it should be in medical uses
    • "Within the cell, vitamin K undergoes electron" - this paragraph would benefit if you added an inital sentence explaining that vitamin K is continuously recycled.
      • REPLY: Prefer to keep Biochemistry and Physiology as separate sections, with the former what the vitamin does and the latter the consequences. Measurement subsection moved. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • History - well written.

REPLY: I believe I have addressed all of the Readability comments. David notMD (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks David notMD for being so responsive. There are still some pending issues - most of which I suspect you may have accidentally skipped over in my list above:--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    • These things will block nomination (relating to verifiability, MOS and well written)
      • A citation needed tag has crept in to "Vitamin K2"
      • When you refer to institute of medicine it should be decapitalised when referred to as "the institute" (MOS:INSTITUTIONS). Adequate intake and daily value should also be decapitalised (In the names of scientific and mathematical concepts, only proper names (or words derived from them) should be capitalized, from WP:MOSCAPS). Happy to get a second opinion on this one if you want, but it really does stand out as nonstandard formatting that doesn't meet with the manual of style requirements.
      • Definition section needs to define Vitamin K. Currently it starts with explaining what it does ("This vitamin has several roles"). I suggest reincluding the lead sentence so the section reads something like this: Vitamin K refers to structurally similar, fat-soluble vitamers found in foods and marketed as dietary supplements. "Vitamin K" include several chemical compounds. These are similar in structure in that they share a quinone ring, but differ in the length and degree of saturation of the carbon tail and the number of repeating isoprene units in the side chain (see figures in Chemistry section)
        • REPLY: Removed the sentence that had triggered a "citation needed" for K2 source being intestinal bacteria. No MEDRS ref could be found. And an animal (rat) study actually showed that colonic absorption of vitamin K is not a significant contributor to K status. Capitalization of Institute and other scientific concepts changed to not capitalized. Defintion section reworded. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Please consider these, but they won't block nomination:
      • Consider moving the second section, "Vitamin K deficiency", downwards, as it is confusing to have it placed before some further explanatory information about vitamin K (eg sources, dietary recommendations).
      • Consider including a statement at the start of the warfarin section that explains how warfarin works in brief (I realise that it's already included in this section: "Function in animals", but I think most readers will not instinctively look to that section when reading about warfarin.
        • REPLY: Vitamin K deficiency section moved to after Sources, and Managing warfarin therapy subsection now has introductory content. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of the second set of Readability comments. David notMD (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks greatly, looks much better. I have no further concerns, and have passed the article. Well done David notMD. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Did "K" come from Danish or German?[edit]

The lead suggests "K" came from Danish, and another part that it came from the language of the publication (German):

'...Danish for "coagulation"...'
'The new vitamin received the letter K because the initial discoveries were reported in a German journal'

Which language did "K" come from? (Had it been different letters in the two languages, the "K" could still have been derived from a Danish word and the German long name not containing "K".)

--Mortense (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

In his lecture upon receiving the 1943 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, vitamin K discoverer Henrik Dam said that "K" was the next available letter for naming a newly-identified vitamin. Also, according to Merriam-Webster (and stated in Dam's lecture), both Danish and German (also Swedish and Norwegian) have "k" as the first letter in "coagulation", making K a convenient, appropriate choice, which is a useful mnemonic for remembering its main "koagulation" role in animals. Zefr (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Better answer than I was going to supply, as I got as far as it being koagulation in both Danish and German. David notMD (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)