Wikipedia:Peer review/Tay–Sachs disease/archive2

Tay–Sachs disease

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like this to become a FA in the future for Metzenberg (or at least GA). I have been working with the article. It seems strangely that something is missing. This PR will straighten it out I hope.

Thanks, ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 14:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing could be tightened up. 'There is currently no cure' - well, could just write 'there is no cure' because if there ever wars, the article would be updated PDQ, and it would be better located after 'death by age four'. ('How horrible', the reader thinks, 'can nothing be done?') This observations applies to the whole article.
"The variant forms reflect diversity in the mutation base." ???
- Removed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Muscles begin to get atrophy and then paralysis."
- Clarification needed. Changed a bit. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Genetics: might be explicit that one copy is recessive and causes no problems. (Kind of funny that 'autosomal recessive disease' is defined only after it's been used a couple times.)
- Done. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Pathophysiology' section might be moved up.
'Diagnosis': the long anecdote making up half of it seems kind of odd.
- Removed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Couples can call a hotline If both are"
- Clarification needed. Typo fixed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize the history section has a separate article, but more could be quoted from it, IMO.
- Doing. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think the writing needs to be tightened up as mentioned, jargon needs to be explained the first time it appears (for example, the discussion of founder populations in the Genetics section precedes the good founder effect diagram in the Epidemiology section), and thought given to what an ordinary reader (who may only fuzzily remember high school biology) will understand at each point so one avoids inferential distance. --Gwern (contribs) 16:10 7 January 2012 (GMT)
- Explain more? (Note that I'm very bad at detecting and fixing typos and such). ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps the Guild of Copy-Editors could help? Allens (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Requesting. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]