Talk:Ring chromosome 22/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 14:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: I'm starting this review. My plan is to do two major passes through the article, first for prose, the second to verify the references. In general, all my comments will be suggestions which you can accept or reject as you see fit. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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 (reference section): 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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Prose

Lead section

"fuse with one another", maybe shorten this to just "fuse"?

You explain that "Ring chromosome 22" is also known as "ring 22". Would it make sense to use the shorter version throughout the article to reduce verbiage?

"number of consistent traits", link traits -> Phenotypic trait

"intellectual disability, speech delay, hypotonia, and hyperactivity." WP:SEAOFBLUE

First, third, and fourth of these are all fixed. I'm unsure about the second; my experience is "ring chromosome 22" is the more common/recognizable name, so I've leaned towards using it more. Vaticidalprophet 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation

"otherwise phenotypically normal man with a ring 22 and azoospermia,", omit "a", ie just make it, "...with ring 22"? Also, perhaps out of scope for this article, but the immediate question that comes to my mind is how common is azoospermia in the general population, and thus is it statistically significant that there's one individual with both conditions, and any reason to believe ring 22 was a causal factor? Likewise for the case of the malformed clitoris noted in the next sentence.

"the ring chromosome 22", as noted above, maybe simplify to just "ring 22"?

"People with ring chromosome 22 are medically indicated to undergo regular MRI scans...". This sounds like wikipedia giving medical advice. I suggest a more specific citation, "According to the Rare Chromosome Disorder Support Group...", or something along those lines. I'm not an expert on our medical article policies, so I'll defer to your judgement on this.

Causes

"The amount of genes lost in a deletion", mismatch of count vs measurement. Rewrite as either, "The amount of genetic material lost", or "The number of genes lost", or some variation. Given the rest of the sentence, "reports of the loss of anywhere between 0.15% and 21%", it sounds like this is more of an amount, or perhaps it could be, "The number of base pairs lost..."

"virtually always arise" sounds clunky to me. Perhaps "almost always", or "usually"?

Diagnosis

No specific issues, but I don't think a section this short needs its own heading. Could this material reasonably be worked into some other section?

Management

"innate genetic disorder". Is there any kind of genetic disorder other than innate?

See my comments above about avoiding the appearance to giving medical advice.

Epidemiology

As with Causes above, can this be combined into another section?

History

No issues.

I'll break here and come back for a reference review later, but possibly not today.

Images

I uploaded a modified version of the Karyotype which I think is easier for the reader. Feel free to revert if you don't like it.

Looks good! Vaticidalprophet 17:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Sorry to spring this on you so early, but after further consideration, I've decided to withdraw the GAN. My additional picking-apart of the article has led me to decide I'm very unhappy with it, and would rather either just let it sit for a bit or rewrite it heavily. (Also, can you remove the WT:MED comment? It made me kind of panicky about the article's quality -- not anything your fault, there are just enough FA writers and Important People on there that I'm kind of intimidated by the place.) Vaticidalprophet 20:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet, Um, sure, if you want to withdraw, that's your decision. But I'd rather leave the question on WT:MED because I'm sure the answer will be useful to me for future reviews. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]