Wikipedia:Peer review/Down syndrome/archive1

Down syndrome

This article has been relatively stable for the past few months. We are looking for ways to improve it, topics we may have left out, and any comments about the coverage and scope of the article. Thanks for the help. Ted 01:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
- Done, Ted 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
- Done with exception of those that will be modified with WP:CITE. Ted 00:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  - Finished all.Ted 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
Comment. I'm having problems with this one. I have converted two lists into tables. While they are still lists, the table format actually works better for them. It also takes them out of the text, which is good. There are two lists remaining: One is set to emphasize the four different causes of Down syndrome. While it could be put in paragraph form, I worry that it will be hard to distinguish the four parts. The other is, well, a (shortened) list of possible physical effects. As a paragraph, it would stink. If need be, I guess we could delete it. Any comments about where to go with this would be very welcome. Ted 18:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, we left in one list (health), created two tables, and used another list for subdivisions. Ted 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
- Done, Ted 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
- Done, Ted 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
- Done, Ted 14:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Double check for typos like in footnote #7.

After a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all (for example, either In 1908, this happened or In 1908 this happened).
- Done, Ted 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
- Done, Ted 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For examples of featured articles that this article can follow as a guide, see WP:FA#Biology and medicine.

For other suggestions that may be applicable to this article, take a look at the list of suggestions located at User:AndyZ/PR.
Thanks, AndyZ _t 12:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to AndyZ's bullet point about date links. This can be done easily using a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your specific comments. I have moved them to Talk:Down syndrome and we'll start working on them. We've already done the alphabetization and worked on a couple other of the minor changes. We will work on any other comments reviewers might have. Ted 18:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things that might be nice. First of all, some thorough copyediting will be needed before FAC - there are several single sentence paragraphs, short sections, etc. The Robertsonian section should be rewritten for grammar and clarity. Some of the language, especially in the last paragraph of the lead, could use some work (on the one hand, etc.). I'd like to see data for the "nearly all will learn to read, write and do simple mathematics." Just the percentage with infantile spasms alone would lead me to doubt this statement, though I don't have any data at hand. I think that the list format of the medical section should be expanded and covered in more depth - these aspects of the disease are extremely important, especially when they are young. The screening section could use some updates (quad screen, etc) with some discussion about the large number of abortions (at least in America) based upon diagnosis of 21. If absolute numbers/percentages of abortions were available, it would be nice to include. The lead section sentence "perhaps a higher than average risk of incidence" is redundant, as are several other sentences which could be tightened. It might be nice to move the history section to the bottom and move up the symptoms, etc. to be more in line with the medical template. In any event, great job! If I don't respond to your efforts to improve, don't worry, I'll be on vacation, no ignoring you! InvictaHOG 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will put them in the To Do list. I'll also report back here as we work on it. Some comments right now are:

The vast majority of children with Down syndrome have mild to moderate mental retardation. Such children can typically read, write, and do simple math. There are some children with severe mental retardation (IQ 20-35), where this can be problematic. I'll try to find data and modify the statement. Update I couldn't find any references to confirm this. I've deleted it until such time as we can verify the claim. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While there are several screens that could be added, the NT-derived tests are, by far, the best (confirmed by NIH). For later testing, the AFP-Free Beta test outperforms Quad (although I don't have any reliable numbers). The ACOG (American College of Obstetrics and Gynocology) makes no recommendations for second trimester screens. If anyone has Quad rates, they can add them. As far as I can tell, these two tests (NT tests for first trimester/AFP-Free Beta for second trimester) are up to date. Update: I found a source and added the Quad test. As expected, it doesn't do as well, but it is now in the table. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if anyone has abortion numbers. However, abortion is a sensitive issue and I'd hate to saddle this article with all that baggage. Update I found several sources listing abortion rates of 85-90% for fetuses that have been identified as Down syndrome. I'm not really sure how to use that information. Any help would be appreciated. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Update. I've found and put in the numbers into the prenatal testing section along with some comments about ethics. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, an editor added the term "risk". We had avoided that earlier, and the editing left some awkward sentences. We are working on it.

Update. No comments from the peanut gallery, so I'll leave it as risk. I'm sure that at some time it will be changed, but we can deal with it when that happens. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the comments. Ted Talk 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the Translocation section. I'm letting it settle in a little before copyediting it. Ideally, the article on translocations could be referenced, but it isn't very good right now, so I'm doing it all here. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EL, WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is not a repository of links"), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Writing medical articles ("However, their number should be kept in check –Wikipedia is not a collection of links. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool for charities however worthy, nor is it trying to be resource for those seeking help."), I suggest deleting *all* of the External links, and replacing them with the DMOZ category for Down syndrome. Since there is an established repository, you can encourage anyone who wants to add a link to add it to DMOZ. Any reputable organization should already be listed there. Sandy 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. I looked over the links in Wiki's article and the links at dmoz. There is very little overlap. I only did a quick check, so may have missed one or two, but I found only one link from the article's Association list (Down Syndrome Research Foundation). There were a couple in the Informational list. The list appears to be mainly local organizations. I'll work on trying to reduce the size of the list here, but it would seem that most of the DS organizations we use are not listed there. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should be encouraged to list at DMOZ, and refrain from being listed at Wiki. It is not up to Wiki to promote charities, and lists of external links to support and informational groups often lead to revert wars and extensive editing and re-editing over which are "worthy" of inclusion. Let DMOZ do that for you :-)) Sandy 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I found two lists for Down syndrome that are much better than DMOZ. I have included those. I've been pruning down the list. My hope is to get all the informational material into the references section, then delete the entire section. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that the article doesn't seem to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Writing medical articles: is there any particular reason? Sandy 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revisit the problem. I looked at it earlier and rejected it as cumbersome for genetic syndromes. The only two genetic featured articles are Cystic fibrosis and Lesch-Nyhan syndrome. In both those cases, the cause is a single gene. None of the chromosomal abnormalities have made it to featured article status yet. The History section is earlier than normal so that we can deal with naming, particularly "Mongolian idiocy". Such sections as "Symptoms" are not really a concern with Down syndrome -- nearly all infants with Down syndrome are detected at birth (some mosaics are missed). In the same way, you don't "Treat" Down syndrome. You do treat the various health problems that arise. The thrust of the "Clinical medicine" project is: diagnosis, treatment, prognosis (hence, the "clinical" part). The way we have written it is not that.

We would be glad to see any suggestions you might have for this article to fit better into the clinical medical template. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette syndrome is also genetic, and not a perfect fit for a traditional "medical disease", but I was able to make the suggested format work (although there are sections I'm still working on ... I know how I am going to make Prevention and Screening work, but haven't gotten to them yet.) Once I stopped resisting the medical format, and went with it, I found that it really helped to focus the article, keep the content more encyclopedic (as opposed to more support or advocacy-groupish) and showed where the article was lacking. Sandy 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see how it will work. I have rearranged the order somewhat, to somewhat fit the order given. I have used normal genetic terms in place of clinical terms, such as using Characteristics instead of Symptoms.

In addition, for this article, we have to have some order based on the topic. For example, Prenatal Screening has to come after Incidence (when maternal age effect is discussed) and History (when eugenics is discussed). I start teaching later this week, so I'll give it a rest and hope that I can see it with fresh eyes. Thanks, again, for the comments. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sections are very short, don't correspond to the recommended headings for medical articles, and don't seem to warrant an entire section (e.g.; plastic surgery and World Down syndrome day). Sandy 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'll look to see where they can go. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've moved most of such sections into the main body. I left them as subsections, and will evaluate if they should be simply merged into the main section body. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that a lot of the "less than medical" content could be consolidated. I really dislike seeing "notable" lists in the actual medical article, and intensely dislike it when claims of notables are not referenced (as these sorts of lists can degenerate). Maybe you'd consider moving that out, as I did in Tourette syndrome, and referencing the notables as I did with Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. That type of content is of intense interest to families of the condition, but not particularly encyclopedic, so it can help to move it all to a daughter article. Very nice job so far !!! Hope this helps, Sandy 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't seen that problem with Down syndrome, which is more "physically obvious". The list has been quite stable since before the first of the year (other than obvious vandalism). I suspect it is much more a problem with Tourette syndrome or androgen insensitivity. I really hate lists, but maybe that is a way to go here. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, yes, I see the difference, and strike that objection for your case. Anyone can allege someone had/has Tourette's, and it happens all the time, so I had a stronger need to reference the statements. Sandy 02:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I guess this peer review is officially closed (although I still have it on watch). I wholeheartedly thank everyone who has contributed. I'm too close to the project, but I think it has improved based on your comments and criticisms. Thanks, again.

Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]