Talk:Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Overall, the article looks pretty solid. We'll run through the article to fix up minor problems, and then this should be an easy pass.

Prose

• "a human autosomal dominant genetic disorder that involves susceptibility to" I suggest changing "involves" to "can cause".

 Done

• "Typically, they first appear in a person's 20s or 30s, and are found in more than 80% of people with the syndrome after this age." The use of 'this age' suggests a specific number, but it's not clear what that number would be. This also appears to be somewhat inconsistent with the lead. Unless I'm mistaken, both problems can be addressed by changing "after this age" with "above the age of 40" or some such.

 Done

• Avoid beginning paragraphs with phrasing that relies upon the viewer having read the previous paragraph. This is especially true for the openings of sections (italics added for emphasis):
  • "People over 20 years of age with Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome also have an increased risk"

 Done

• • "Additionally, affected individuals frequently develop..."

 Done

• "people with Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome are at seven times the risk of kidney cancer compared to the unaffected population. Estimates of the incidence among people with the disease range from 14%–34%" These two claims seem incompatible with one another. "seven times the risk" is very precise, but "14%–34%" is a pretty wide range. How can both of these be true? Perhaps "seven times the risk" should be changed to "roughly seven times more likely"

Yeah, there's a really wide range of estimates, that's a product of the small number of affected families. I've gone with "roughly seven times the risk", is that okay? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Organization

• The image in the infobox definitely needs a caption. I couldn't figure out what the symptoms of the syndrome were until I started reading through the intro.

For some reason the caption doesn't show up even when it's in the "caption" parameter of the infobox. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Captions which are complete sentences should end with a period. Captions that are not complete sentences should not.

 Done

• Is there any way to expand the Epidemiology section?

Not really, since the disorder is so uncommon there's not a lot of information beyond what's there. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Less severe phenotypes are seen in women" Seems like something that belongs in Epidemiology

 Done

• Avoid one-sentence paragraphs, such as the BHD Foundation in the History section. If it's notable enough to be mentioned, it deserves a few more sentences. Otherwise, delete it.

I think it deserves a mention but don't think much more should be written about it. I've merged that sentence into the previous paragraph. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the various Other animals subsections: I think these should either be expanded or simply merged together. As it stands right now, there's clearly enough information for an Other animals section, but not enough on each animal to subdivide further.

There's not much more to write that isn't molecular biology cruft so I've merged them all together. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources

• The article makes extensive use of peer-reviewed journals and books. Great!
• The citations are clear, consistent, and appear to provide hyperlinks whenever possible.
• I think we can do a better job of indicating where to find information within each source, particularly those that are more than 3 or 4 pages long. The {{rp}} template is very handy for this purpose, though you are free to use another method if you know of one.

I think I'm going to see if {{sfn}} is a viable option, if not, I'll try {{rp}}. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll continue the prose review the above issues are addressed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cryptic C62: Thank you so much for reviewing! I just started a new semester at university so it may take me a few days to have time to respond. I hope that's okay - I will respond as soon as I can! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Keilana: It's all good, mate. Take as much time as you need. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cryptic C62: I think I've taken care of everything that I can except the footnotes, which are in progress. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cryptic C62: Hi, sorry it took me so long, but I've finished putting page numbers in the shortened footnotes. Let me know if they're okay or if there's something I overlooked. Thanks so much for your patience and review! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Keilana: We're all set! I hereby proclaim this GAN successful. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Red links

Not a GA requirement but turning the red links into redirects or adding something to them always makes the article look nicer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• From WP:REDLINK: "A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Who suggested that "no useful information" was to be added to them? A sentence or two saying what something is is all one needs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jmh649: Hi Doc James, I got rid of all but 3; I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to write about the redlinks left. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)