Talk:Dioxygen in biological reactions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Chemistry
Chemistry Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..
Dioxygen in biological reactions was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: February 14, 2008

[edit] What is this article about?

This article seems to be about the role of the molecule dioxygen in biological redox reactions, rather than the role of the element oxygen in biology. Either this article is mis-named, or it is seriously incomplete. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it is about dioxygen. Is the name ok now? Nergaal (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, yes, it makes more sense now. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled by this article, I don't think it has a clear focus and the subject itself is such a large one. The article is kind of fragmentary. This comes I think from the huge scope of the subject, so it isn't possible to cover all of it in any reasonable way. For example, the article doesn't discuss the various kinds of oxygenases at all, or the roles of oxygen in the nitrogen cycle, and the function of oxygen in the carbon cycle is only implied, not discussed specifically. Similarly, the concentrations of oxygen in sediments and water are vital in determining the ecology of an environment, but this is also missing from the article. I think this topic is just too broad to be covered in an article. Please feel free to find a second opinion on this, since this is just my opinion, but I can't describe this as a Good Article when it lacks comprehensiveness and focus. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)