Talk:Pentasomy X/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Bibeyjj (talk · contribs) 10:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Summary

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)[reply]

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. Vaticidalprophet 10:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1a

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 Y symbol for resolved queries.

Queries
Action	Section	Current	Proposed
Y	Presentation	facies	facies
Y	Presentation	caries	In general, "tooth decay" is the more common phrase, and the name of the linked Wikipedia article - worth considering simplifying the language.
N	Presentation	Some adolescents and adults...	This sentence is fairly long, so you may consider shortening it.

Piped "facies" to the correct link and reworded caries/tooth decay. Will look a bit at the long sentence, although I don't see any obvious shortenings. Vaticidalprophet 11:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of thought, I don't see any obvious shortening of this sentence. (It ties into some of the other 'hold' issues below, so I'll bring that up there sooner or later, and it may be reworked anyway.) Vaticidalprophet 01:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

1b

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)[reply]

Complies with WP:LEAD. The lead is structured perfectly, and is of a sufficient length to give an accessible overview of the article. The alternative name is handled correctly.
Partially complies with WP:LAYOUT. Sections are handled and organised well. Prose is organised well. The end sections are also laid out correctly. "Presentation" may benefit from some subheadings (not described in WP:MEDORDER), such as "Psychology", "Puberty", "Heart", and "Musculoskeletal". "Causes" may benefit from the 2nd paragraph being put at the end of the section, with a subheading "Risk factors". "Diagnosis" may benefit from the subheading "Differential diagnosis". The lack of a "See also" section is significant, as there are a number of related sex chromosome aneuploidies that would benefit from being listed.
- Complies with WP:MEDORDER. All headings are appropriate.
Complies with WP:WORDS. I can see no words that introduce bias, and the article complies with WP:NPOV. The correct level of scientific precision is generally included, although some of the language is a little high-level for a lay audience - much of this language is clarified with a simpler explanation in brackets or a subordinate clause.
Does not need to comply with WP:WAF.
Complies with WP:Embedded lists. No such lists are included, and this is appropriate.

I've added a see also for a couple things not linked in the article body that I figured could nonetheless do with mention. The other things I can easily think of are linked and so strictly don't fit MOS:SEEALSO, but feel free to add anything you think is missing from both the body and the section. I may rename 'Diagnosis' to 'Diagnosis and differential diagnosis' as I did at tetrasomy X -- I don't think there's quite enough there on the diagnostic process alone to subheading it out. Will consider the other subsections, though I'm not sold on them improving readability rather than just making the article a bit choppy-looking. Vaticidalprophet 16:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the "See also" section. I completely agree with your judgement on links to include. The renaming of "Diagnosis" would also be appropriate if you wish to do so. With regards to subheadings of "Presentation", my only concern was that the prose is fairly long, and the symptoms are quite broad, so it may be hard to find particular symptoms for the reader who just gives a casual glance. Looking at WP:OVERSECTION, I don't think that some subsections would be bad, as it would be unlikely to have a very short subsection with so much prose. Bibeyjj (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

2a

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)[reply]

2b

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)[reply]

Reference Quality
#	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

1 only has a PMID to its source. A link can be found at https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/96/4/672/tab-article-info. The ISSN is 1098-4275.
6 lacks a link to its source. A link can be found at http://www.hkjpaed.org/details.asp?id=945&show=1234.
19 only has a PMID to its source. A link can be found at https://indianpediatrics.net/may2011/402.pdf.
27 lacks a link to its source. A link can be found at https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/actabiol/article/view/9351.
34 lacks a link to its source. Links can be found at https://www.nature.com/articles/pr19811080 and https://doi.org/10.1203/00006450-198104001-00768 (both should probably be included).

All linked. Vaticidalprophet 15:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding these links! This really improves the accessibility. Bibeyjj (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2c

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)[reply]

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

Queries
Action	#	Query
Y	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.
Y	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.
Y	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".
Y	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).
Y	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.
N	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.
Y	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.
Y	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.
Y	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.
Y	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.

I've added an additional ref to support 16a about the prevalence of patent ductus arteriosis. 20a is one I've been thinking about how to reword -- 'unremarkable' is technically correct, it isn't remarked upon, and I'm trying to figure out a way to word "they didn't comment on it" that doesn't imply either normality or abnormality too strongly. Vaticidalprophet 15:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding this. Perhaps "changes to puberty are not notable" would work? I see what you mean about the conspicuous absence of information on puberty in the article. Bibeyjj (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to 'non-noteworthy'. Will double-check 33; it's something I know to be true but found surprisingly hard to actually source anywhere (you know how it is sometimes). Vaticidalprophet 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the information supported by #33 to make it slightly clearer what's getting at, and I think it's better supported now. That should be everything. Vaticidalprophet 00:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Vaticidalprophet 08:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also handled 4 and 36. Couldn't find 16b/c addenda either, so left those. I think that should be everything? Vaticidalprophet 00:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Thank you for sorting these minor queries with reference usage. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2d

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)[reply]

3a

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)[reply]

3b

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)[reply]

4

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)[reply]

5

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)[reply]

6a

Pass. All 3 images are licensed under Creative Commons licenses.

Image 1 uses CC BY 3.0, which is the correct license following the original source at https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/935202.
Image 2 uses CC BY 2.0, which is the correct license following the original source at https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-8166-2-20.
Image 3 uses CC BY 3.0, which is the correct license following the original source at https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/935202 (the same source as image 1).

6b

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)[reply]

Concluding Summary

Bibeyjj, anything left to resolve? Vaticidalprophet 10:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaticidalprophet! Thank you for your work so far. There are still a few queries to resolve regarding 2c, but everything else seems good. Hoping you are well! Bibeyjj (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass 7. Hi Vaticidalprophet! Congratulations - Pentasomy X has passed Good Article Review! You have put a lot of work both into creating this article and into making the minor adjustments that have brought it up to standard - thank you for being proactive. Your contributions to articles on chromosomal abnormalities are deeply appreciated. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.