october utc overagainst i respectfully disagree and that still doesn't mean that it should displace all other sources in the article i also never wrote that this was a medical dictionary i wrote that this is an encyclopedia article and as such should encapsulate to the extent possible in a small space and for a lay audience the current state of scientific understanding of vitamin d which means that the order in which things appear in the article should be changed i also explicitly stated i was against a separate section for dissenting opinions or other opinions i agree with doc james we should preferentially include reviews and meta analyses but there are enough of those which contradict the iom recommendations that it shouldn't be a problem to give this article the balance it deserves while maintaining a high standard the point is that the article reads like somebody's agenda in other words it reads pov the sources have been cherry picked and the tone is against supplementation which doesn't reflect the body of research the article needs to be changed