Talk:Ehlers–Danlos syndrome/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 15:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am happy to review this article for GA status. I typically read through and make comments as I go, and then once the issues have been worked through, run through the checklist to make sure I didn't miss anything. This is a longer article, so it may take a bit longer. Canada Hky (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding comments from previous GA review

To start with, I went back to look at the previous GA review to identify any outstanding issues that remained from that comprehensive review. There were several:

There are sections with lists (symptoms, genes, etc) where the referencing is unclear, and some entries are referenced and some are not.
Some citation needed tags still remain Done
Some of the questionable sources that were identified at the end of the review remain.
Some of the confusing phrasing regarding causative mutations in the introduction remain - "mutations in 19 genes..." Done

My initial comments

This is an interesting article, however it does need some work to bring it to GA status. As of right now, the article is very disparate, and lacks cohesion. Once sourcing issues (my main concern) are fixed, a good run through with a copy editor may be beneficial.

There are a lot of primary sources / case reports: refs #: 10, 12, 17, 24, 26, 27, 49, 50, 87. Identifying several good, recent reviews and working from those sources may result in a better article, rather than a large number of references to single cases.

I'm in the process of correcting this. I have replaced #10 and 12 so far. Stand by... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17 is fixed. #24 I see one possible review but don't have access. #26 is a case report and literature review #27 is a literature review, it's not primary or a case report. #49, #50, and #87 have all been fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Mutation" is not preferred nomenclature, it should be "variant" or "pathogenic variant"

This has been addressed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of abbreviations are introduced and then never used again. If the term is never used again in the article, an abbreviation does not need to be introduced.

This should be better now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gene names should be italicized - this is inconsistent throughout.

This should be better now.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The signs and symptoms section is comprehensive, but could use some explanation and text in the sections that are currently long lists - how prevalent are these signs and symptoms, which types, etc, etc
There is inconsistent usage throughout of "EDS" vs "an EDS"

This should be better now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lot of this - particularly in the photo captions.

Well, I did say better (not eliminated). This inconsistency has now been completely eliminated from the article and is resolved. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the pictures, if there is an additional information about the type of EDS being shown, that should be included in the captions.

As a first pass, I think there is plenty to work on - I am going to place the article on hold, if there are any questions, please drop me a note, and I will check in on the page as I am able. As I read more in depth, I will add to this review. Canada Hky (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update of Issues for GA review

Thanks for the work that has been done so far. For clarity, here are the remaining issues identified:

There are sections with lists (symptoms, genes, etc) where the referencing is unclear, and some entries are referenced and some are not.
Some of the questionable sources that were identified at the end of the review remain.
There are a lot of primary sources / case reports: refs #: 10, 12, 17, 24, 26, 27, 49, 50, 87. Identifying several good, recent reviews and working from those sources may result in a better article, rather than a large number of references to single cases.

This has been addressed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The signs and symptoms section is comprehensive, but could use some explanation and text in the sections that are currently long lists - how prevalent are these signs and symptoms, which types, etc, etc
For the pictures, if there is an additional information about the type of EDS being shown, that should be included in the captions.

And after another read through, with the changes in progress, I noticed a few other things that should be addressed:

Copyvio (this was also raised in the previous review) with the NIH rare diseases site. There are a couple other hits >50% as well.
In the history section, the OMIM links require context. It is not clear why the numbers and classifications don't line up - this should be explained in the text. A tabular format may be more helpful than text. "Description", "Type", "Gene", "Inheritance", "Common features" etc. Then, consider folding both lists into one.
The history section talks about six major types, then 10, while the classification section says 13.
Be careful in the text regarding clarity when talking about the disorders (meaning EDS) and the subtypes. This is confusing particularly in the Epidemiology section.
Its a minor quibble, but the picture of the St Bernard is very overexposed, and I don't know that it is particularly illustrative, as one could make the argument that matted hair could be photographed to look similarly.

The mention of similarity to DSLD in the article cited is in passing, and then the article summarizes to say it isn't really that similar to any of the three human disorders mentioned. Unless there is a secondary source saying this, I would remove it entirely.
Is the "Classification" section best suited under "Diagnosis" or would it be better suited combined with the Genetics material in a section about "pathophysiology"?

I think there is still a lot to do here, but I can leave the article on hold for a while longer. If you would prefer longer than the standard 7 days, or shorter considering the magnitude of work, please let me know. Canada Hky (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC) - ❄️Steve ^talk? 13:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC) I think that the Classification subsection would be better under Diagnosis[reply]

There has definitely been some editing going on, and improvements are taking place. Some of the larger issues, including copyvio, primary sources and unreferenced items in lists, etc haven't been touched. Would the editors who are active mind weighing in with an honest assessment of whether they think that is possible in the next week or so? If not, I would like to close the GA review, but I am happy to take a look at anything after that if there is confusion or something that isn't clear. Canada Hky (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With no response to this, I am going to go ahead and close this nomination as failed. I am happy to provide feedback moving forward. Canada Hky (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]