Talk:21-Hydroxylase/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 23:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can take this on, just give me a few days to get through it. Sorry to see such a long wait in the queue! Ajpolino (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mostly assess the criteria in order and will work in bits and pieces. You're welcome to address things and reply to my comments as I go, or to wait for me to finish reviewing. Pardon the slow process, fitting this in as I find bits of time. Stay well! Ajpolino (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and lists):

The prose could use some minor cleanup to improve readability. Suggestions:

Lead - The products of the conversions then continue through their appropriate pathways towards creation of... to "The products of the conversions are then used to create..."
Function - The steroid 21-hydroxylase (or simply 21-hydroxylase) enzyme.... You could just mention "21-hydroxylase" as a common name at the top of the lead, and then use that name from there.
Function - ...21-hydroxylase) enzyme is called this way because it hydroxylates steroids at the C21 position to "...21-hydroxylase) enzyme hydroxylates steroids at the C21 position."
Function - 21-hydroxylase is an essential enzyme in the biosynthetic pathways that produce... to "21-hydroxylase is essential for the production of...".
Mechanism - However, understanding of human 21-hydroxylase structure and function is of particular clinical value, as a failure of the enzyme to act appropriately results in congenital adrenal hyperplasia. can probably be removed. It's covered elsewhere in the article.
Genetics#Role in the human major histocompatibility complex - the first paragraph here seems like too much detail on MHC class III for an article on 21-hydroxylase. I'd suggest removing that paragraph entirely, and bringing the second paragraph up with the rest of the section (i.e. removing the two subheadings for the Genetics section).
Clinical significance - A related pseudogene is located near this gene. can be removed. We just read that in the section before this one.
Clinical significance - In general, you can remove terms like "Studies have shown that..." without losing meaning. The manual of style section on weasel words uses a similar example.
Clinical significance - but exhibit other phenotypical symptoms... - remove "phenotypical".
Clinical significance#Congenital adrenal hyperplasia - I feel this section would be clearer if it was reorganized a bit. Let me think about it and get back to you.

The article has some MOS issues that we should address:

Lead - The lead should be a concise summary of all the major points of the article (WP:LEAD). At the very least, a sentence or two on CAH should be added. I'd suggest you go through the article, keep in mind what the major points are, and then scroll up to the top and make sure they're all covered in the lead.
Lead - we typically do not include citations in the lead (see WP:WHENNOTCITE) as all material in the lead should be repeated in greater detail with citations in the article body. That said, nothing strictly forbids citations in the lead (folks often include them for numerical data, quotes, and controversial material). So if you feel strongly about it, they can stay.
Images - I can't find a particular requirement in the MOS, but I think this article has too many images/non-text elements for the size of the article. On my screen about half of the article is whitespace due to large images blocking out the text. The point of the manual of style is for articles to have a consistent look, and this one has an unusual look indeed. My suggestions would be to pick just one infobox (the later infobox is huge and forces the next section down farther than my screen length!), consider moving any less-essential images to a gallery or removing them, and reduce some of the images' size. Also setting a particular pixel size is discouraged (see WP:IMAGESIZE), so consider toying with the "thumbnail" size and scaling them using "upright" to see how that changes display.

Just as an FYI, if you have two images that you wish to display together, another option is {{Multiple image}} which can accomplish some nifty tricks. Sadly, it forces you to pick a pixel size, but other than that it's pretty neat. As an example, I've gone ahead and fit the two reaction images into one frame. Feel free to undo, just wanted to show how it looks. Ajpolino (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section):

b (citations to reliable sources):

c (OR):

d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Could you fill in the details on the two references that just URLs? They're currently reference 1 and 42.

In general, we strive to use secondary sources (i.e. reviews) as references where possible (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources) as they're a more reliable indicator of mainstream scientific thinking than primary sources. It's completely fine to use primary sources to source uncontroversial facts, and to add detail not available in reviews, especially for a somewhat niche topic like this one. But wherever you can replace older primary sources with newer secondary sources, it improves the reliability of our articles. Also molecular biology changes quickly, so the newer the source, the more likely our article will be up-to-date and reliable. Some specific examples:

Most of the citations in the "Congenital adrenal hyperplasia" subsection could be replaced with citations to recent reviews of CAH, e.g. 2017 Lancet and 2020 NEJM. If you don't have access to either, I'm happy to send them along.
For the genetics section, the two reviews I linked above have some nice info, but I see there's also a 2018 review of the 21OH variants that cause CAH. I don't have access to that review, so I don't know how good it is. If you don't have access either, we can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.

One of the citations in the lead is to this paper which is in a journal published by MDPI. MDPI has attracted some controversy over the years for having, at times, lax peer review. That's not to say that everything in an MDPI journal is flawed, but just that papers in those journals should be viewed with a touch of caution.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects):

b (focused):

Pass. If you're interested in adding more to this article in the future (i.e. Not required for this review!), it'd be great if you could add some more detail on the reaction itself to beef up the "Reaction" section, some more info on evolutionary relatedness (right now the Genetics section just mentions mouse, chicken, and quail) if available, and a brief History section. Otherwise looks great!

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

All images are appropriately licensed.

Can you change the caption for the last image? Maybe something like "Evolution of the CYP21A locus in humans and mice."? Captions don't need the "This diagram provides" bit.

Overall:

Pass/Fail: