Talk:Catabolism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction. | ||
|
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.. |
|||
--Chris Vandemore 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC) "Classic" and "Newer" catabolic hormones appear to be subsets of "catabolic hormones," yet "newer" is presented under the heading "classic." This presentation is confusing or misleading. I am a lay person, but to me, "newer" just doesn't seem like the right word here. Are these hormones new? Or is it that they are more recently discovered or more recently studied or more recently considered? It might be better to simply list the "newer" hormones in a list with the "classic" hormones. After all, why make a distinction? Is there a difference? If an important distinction exists, that distiction should be explained. If there is no distiction, we shouldn't distinguish.
- The person who added the new hormones screwed up the apparent hierarchies. I am fixing it. alteripse 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
--MattDal 05:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)The section on th eempirical formula of carbohydrates is incorrect. This was once believed to be true but has since shown to be incorrect. The formula is at best a general rule of thumb.
[edit] Return to Redirect
This does not really make sense. If you move the subsections of catabolism to another "stub", we just have two stubs in a row now. Thise short intros should stay at Cell metabolism, to refer to the detailed articles about each. It is disturbing to a user to keep clicking through short outlines to get to the meat if that is what they are seeking. If not, I would think a user would prefer all the "superficial" stuff on one page if possible. This approach also plays havoc with the Categories. - Marshman 18:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
