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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bibeyjj ( talk · contribs) 10:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Vaticidalprophet! I'm happy to take on this review as well as XYYY syndrome. This is particularly as the articles you work on always tend to comply well with the Good Article criteria, and are very interesting.
As before, I will be using Template:GABox to keep track of general progress. Comments on each criterion (including why it passes, is put on hold, or fails) will be listed under relevant headings below. My time availability remains good for the next week, so I hope that this review will be fairly quick. Thanks, and hoping you are well! Bibeyjj ( talk) 10:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
This is particularly as the articles you work on always tend to comply well with the Good Article criteria, and are very interesting-- aw, thank you! I've got another review on top of both yours, so I may be a bit spotty, but I don't expect anything to be too difficult to comply with. Vaticidal prophet 10:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hold. In general, the spelling, punctuation, and grammar are all very good. A handful of minor issues I have noticed are listed below. In general, a few more Wikilinks would be preferable as well. I will use the symbol for resolved queries.
Action | Section | Current | Proposed |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Presentation | facies | facies |
![]() |
Presentation | caries | In general, "tooth decay" is the more common phrase, and the name of the linked Wikipedia article - worth considering simplifying the language. |
![]() |
Presentation | Some adolescents and adults... | This sentence is fairly long, so you may consider shortening it. |
Pass. I'm happy that all of the issues have been properly considered. Thanks for thinking about the sentence length issue! Bibeyjj ( talk) 11:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hold. Nearly all of the guidelines are complied with. I think that the use of subheadings deserves some attention, as does the inclusion of a "See also" section of related sex chromosome aneuploidies. Bibeyjj ( talk) 12:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. As the above issues of subsectioning are purely semantics, and all of the major concerns have been addressed, I am satisfied that the article now meets the criteria. Subsectioning can be considered in the future. Bibeyjj ( talk) 10:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Pass. All of the references are formatted correctly following WP:LAYOUT. As far as I can tell, the correct templates are used for each reference. No sources are repeated. Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. All references are to reliable sources. The reliance on academic sources (particularly respected peer-reviewed academic journals) is good. The high proportion of primary sources is explained by the rarity of pentasomy X, so many are case studies - these case studies are generally of a good quality. Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
# | Type | References |
---|---|---|
26 | Primary Source | 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 |
10 | Secondary Source | 1, 3, 4, 7, 14, 26, 28, 29, 33, 36 |
6 | Tertiary Source | 17, 18, 21, 23, 31, 37 |
2 | Reliable Website | 5, 35 |
0 | Less Reliable Website |
Hold. Most of the sources are well represented in the article, with no original research evident. There are a few queries, relating to instances where information could be better phrased in the prose, needs a different source, or is not well represented. These are minor issues that I am sure will be resolved quickly. Bibeyjj ( talk) 15:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Highly used sources (3 times or more): 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 16, 20
Well represented: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44
Unable to check (trust are well represented): 17, 23, 31, 37
Action | # | Query |
---|---|---|
![]() |
4 | 4 is fairly well represented. I queried this, because it does not mention pentasomy X. However, as other sources are clear that intellectual disability is "moderate", I am happy that the characterisation of mental age is correct based on this source. It would be good if the prose clarified that individuals "may have" an adult cognitive capacity similar to that of a six- to eight-year-old. |
![]() |
7 | 7 is well represented, but I am not sure if trisomy X alone is representative of all sex chromosome aneuploidies. An additional inline reference for clarification may be useful, but is not essential. |
![]() |
10 | 10 is well represented. However, I feel that, as this is a unique case study, it should be made clear that the consideration of Larsen syndrome was for one person, "In one case". |
![]() |
14 | 14 is fairly well represented. Whilst psychological effects in related sex chromosome aneuploidies are covered in detail in the article, clinodactyly is only mentioned for 2 other aneuploidies. Because of this, the word "all sex chromosome aneuploidies" is a bit misleading based on this reference. Either the word "some" or "many" should be used, or an alternative source (I do recognise that other sources may well confirm the statement about clinodactyly, just not this particular source). |
![]() |
16 | 16 (use a) is not fairly represented. Whilst the source does highlight patent ductus arteriosus, it does not speculate on its frequency in general in individuals with pentasomy X. The phrasing "particularly frequent" therefore needs to be changed. |
![]() |
16 | 16 (uses b and c) are fairly represented. It would be nice if Carpenter et al. (1979) and Zhang et al. (1982) could be used for referencing the section about similarity to Down syndrome, but I was unable to find these online - this is not mandatory. |
![]() |
20 | 20 (use a) is not well represented. I can't see any mention of puberty in this article, and would appreciate this being pointed out if I'm missing it. |
![]() |
20 | 20 (use c) is well represented. The original study uses a study at https://www.doi.org/10.1007/BF00451449, and it may be better to use this source alongside the current inline citation. |
![]() |
33 | 33 may be well represented. Would you mind pointing out where the sections are that describe "environmental" and "lifestyle" factors? The sections I saw said that environmental factors hadn't been considered. |
![]() |
36 | 36 is well represented. Whilst this mentions testing for trisomy 21, I understand that this is representative of all aneuploidy diagnosis. It might be good to mention "fluorescence in situ hybridisation" as the specific "chromosome testing" procedure. |
Clarified the single-case for 10, added a couple more supporting cites for 14 -- 'all' is hard to source because there's frankly quite a lot of them, but all the ones I've seen described discuss it, so I added a couple more overviews of multiple conditions to demonstrate that it's at least over a very broad range. I'd err for saying 7 is reasonably represented as it is; at the very least, pentasomy X is the only female X-chromosome polysomy not to be associated with tall stature. Vaticidal prophet 08:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Pass. Thank you for sorting these minor queries with reference usage. Bibeyjj ( talk) 10:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Pass. The whole text has been put through various online copyright detection software, which have found no plagiarism. References are well-represented using WP:SUMMARY. Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. All relevant sections are included. "Prevention" information is not needed. "Treatment" information is not needed, and content relevant to "Management" is described in "Prognosis". "Society and culture" is not as relevant for this particular syndrome. "Research directions" is not necessary. I can see no obvious gaps in important information. Bibeyjj ( talk) 12:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. The article follows WP:SUMMARY. In my opinion, the right amount of medical detail is used throughout the article. Bibeyjj ( talk) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. The prose handles all topics sensitively with an impartial tone. No controversial subjects are discussed, and uncertainty in current research is highlighted with appropriate weight. The balance of different symptoms in "Presentation" is handled well. All of this follows WP:NPOV. Bibeyjj ( talk) 11:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. No edit warring (as defined by WP:Edit warring) since the article's creation on 3 April 2021. No edit has ever been reverted. Bibeyjj ( talk) 10:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. All 3 images are licensed under Creative Commons licenses.
Pass. 3 images are used. All 3 images are appropriate and helpful following MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. There are no parts of the article that would particularly benefit from more images. The captions are appropriate following WP:CAPTION. Bibeyjj ( talk) 10:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Bibeyjj, anything left to resolve? Vaticidal prophet 10:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bibeyjj ( talk · contribs) 10:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Vaticidalprophet! I'm happy to take on this review as well as XYYY syndrome. This is particularly as the articles you work on always tend to comply well with the Good Article criteria, and are very interesting.
As before, I will be using Template:GABox to keep track of general progress. Comments on each criterion (including why it passes, is put on hold, or fails) will be listed under relevant headings below. My time availability remains good for the next week, so I hope that this review will be fairly quick. Thanks, and hoping you are well! Bibeyjj ( talk) 10:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
This is particularly as the articles you work on always tend to comply well with the Good Article criteria, and are very interesting-- aw, thank you! I've got another review on top of both yours, so I may be a bit spotty, but I don't expect anything to be too difficult to comply with. Vaticidal prophet 10:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hold. In general, the spelling, punctuation, and grammar are all very good. A handful of minor issues I have noticed are listed below. In general, a few more Wikilinks would be preferable as well. I will use the symbol for resolved queries.
Action | Section | Current | Proposed |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Presentation | facies | facies |
![]() |
Presentation | caries | In general, "tooth decay" is the more common phrase, and the name of the linked Wikipedia article - worth considering simplifying the language. |
![]() |
Presentation | Some adolescents and adults... | This sentence is fairly long, so you may consider shortening it. |
Pass. I'm happy that all of the issues have been properly considered. Thanks for thinking about the sentence length issue! Bibeyjj ( talk) 11:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hold. Nearly all of the guidelines are complied with. I think that the use of subheadings deserves some attention, as does the inclusion of a "See also" section of related sex chromosome aneuploidies. Bibeyjj ( talk) 12:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. As the above issues of subsectioning are purely semantics, and all of the major concerns have been addressed, I am satisfied that the article now meets the criteria. Subsectioning can be considered in the future. Bibeyjj ( talk) 10:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Pass. All of the references are formatted correctly following WP:LAYOUT. As far as I can tell, the correct templates are used for each reference. No sources are repeated. Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. All references are to reliable sources. The reliance on academic sources (particularly respected peer-reviewed academic journals) is good. The high proportion of primary sources is explained by the rarity of pentasomy X, so many are case studies - these case studies are generally of a good quality. Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
# | Type | References |
---|---|---|
26 | Primary Source | 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 |
10 | Secondary Source | 1, 3, 4, 7, 14, 26, 28, 29, 33, 36 |
6 | Tertiary Source | 17, 18, 21, 23, 31, 37 |
2 | Reliable Website | 5, 35 |
0 | Less Reliable Website |
Hold. Most of the sources are well represented in the article, with no original research evident. There are a few queries, relating to instances where information could be better phrased in the prose, needs a different source, or is not well represented. These are minor issues that I am sure will be resolved quickly. Bibeyjj ( talk) 15:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Highly used sources (3 times or more): 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 16, 20
Well represented: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44
Unable to check (trust are well represented): 17, 23, 31, 37
Action | # | Query |
---|---|---|
![]() |
4 | 4 is fairly well represented. I queried this, because it does not mention pentasomy X. However, as other sources are clear that intellectual disability is "moderate", I am happy that the characterisation of mental age is correct based on this source. It would be good if the prose clarified that individuals "may have" an adult cognitive capacity similar to that of a six- to eight-year-old. |
![]() |
7 | 7 is well represented, but I am not sure if trisomy X alone is representative of all sex chromosome aneuploidies. An additional inline reference for clarification may be useful, but is not essential. |
![]() |
10 | 10 is well represented. However, I feel that, as this is a unique case study, it should be made clear that the consideration of Larsen syndrome was for one person, "In one case". |
![]() |
14 | 14 is fairly well represented. Whilst psychological effects in related sex chromosome aneuploidies are covered in detail in the article, clinodactyly is only mentioned for 2 other aneuploidies. Because of this, the word "all sex chromosome aneuploidies" is a bit misleading based on this reference. Either the word "some" or "many" should be used, or an alternative source (I do recognise that other sources may well confirm the statement about clinodactyly, just not this particular source). |
![]() |
16 | 16 (use a) is not fairly represented. Whilst the source does highlight patent ductus arteriosus, it does not speculate on its frequency in general in individuals with pentasomy X. The phrasing "particularly frequent" therefore needs to be changed. |
![]() |
16 | 16 (uses b and c) are fairly represented. It would be nice if Carpenter et al. (1979) and Zhang et al. (1982) could be used for referencing the section about similarity to Down syndrome, but I was unable to find these online - this is not mandatory. |
![]() |
20 | 20 (use a) is not well represented. I can't see any mention of puberty in this article, and would appreciate this being pointed out if I'm missing it. |
![]() |
20 | 20 (use c) is well represented. The original study uses a study at https://www.doi.org/10.1007/BF00451449, and it may be better to use this source alongside the current inline citation. |
![]() |
33 | 33 may be well represented. Would you mind pointing out where the sections are that describe "environmental" and "lifestyle" factors? The sections I saw said that environmental factors hadn't been considered. |
![]() |
36 | 36 is well represented. Whilst this mentions testing for trisomy 21, I understand that this is representative of all aneuploidy diagnosis. It might be good to mention "fluorescence in situ hybridisation" as the specific "chromosome testing" procedure. |
Clarified the single-case for 10, added a couple more supporting cites for 14 -- 'all' is hard to source because there's frankly quite a lot of them, but all the ones I've seen described discuss it, so I added a couple more overviews of multiple conditions to demonstrate that it's at least over a very broad range. I'd err for saying 7 is reasonably represented as it is; at the very least, pentasomy X is the only female X-chromosome polysomy not to be associated with tall stature. Vaticidal prophet 08:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Pass. Thank you for sorting these minor queries with reference usage. Bibeyjj ( talk) 10:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Pass. The whole text has been put through various online copyright detection software, which have found no plagiarism. References are well-represented using WP:SUMMARY. Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. All relevant sections are included. "Prevention" information is not needed. "Treatment" information is not needed, and content relevant to "Management" is described in "Prognosis". "Society and culture" is not as relevant for this particular syndrome. "Research directions" is not necessary. I can see no obvious gaps in important information. Bibeyjj ( talk) 12:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. The article follows WP:SUMMARY. In my opinion, the right amount of medical detail is used throughout the article. Bibeyjj ( talk) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. The prose handles all topics sensitively with an impartial tone. No controversial subjects are discussed, and uncertainty in current research is highlighted with appropriate weight. The balance of different symptoms in "Presentation" is handled well. All of this follows WP:NPOV. Bibeyjj ( talk) 11:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. No edit warring (as defined by WP:Edit warring) since the article's creation on 3 April 2021. No edit has ever been reverted. Bibeyjj ( talk) 10:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Pass. All 3 images are licensed under Creative Commons licenses.
Pass. 3 images are used. All 3 images are appropriate and helpful following MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. There are no parts of the article that would particularly benefit from more images. The captions are appropriate following WP:CAPTION. Bibeyjj ( talk) 10:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Bibeyjj, anything left to resolve? Vaticidal prophet 10:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)