Talk:Flynn–Aird syndrome

Fast comments
I have made comments for the whole class in User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. Take a look at them since some of them are appropiate for this article.

When citing several times the same reference: When the same reference is cited several times it should appear only once in the references section. See an example on how to do it: before, difference, after. (In this case I only fixed one as an example).--Garrondo (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks alot for your comments. The referencing should be better now. Luhizi (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding sourcing: the original paper is definitely an important one, but specially for the history section. To have the full article referenced to it is not enough. Secondary sources should also be found and used.

Bests. More as I have time--Garrondo (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

General Comments
Nick, Ben and Aziz,

To start, your introduction is great: it gives a brief overview of the disease as well as what will be further covered in the article. Although the introduction does touch on a variety of information, there should be a sub-section of the article for causes of the disease. Although the pathophysiology of the disease is unknown, you may want to expand on the theories to add some bulk to the article. Your symptoms section is very well written and informative as to the progression and expression of the disease through the decades of life. In addition, I love how you have a separate for section for the genetics of the disease, as I have noticed it is something that other groups have not focused on, and is very important in understanding the disease.

The biggest critique is the length of the article: it has a vast amount of information and you all seemed well versed on the material, it only touches the surface of the disease. Following reading the article, I noticed you only use one source. This could be why there is a limited amount of information regarding the disease. It may be helpful to investigate the nursing library at BC or libraries at various medical facilities in the area for texts regarding the illness. Further research could add some depth to the already well written article. You have made some incredible improvements to the existing page, however further research might help to expand the page a little more.

(Crockeer (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

While this article has a good start, there definitely seem to be areas that need to be improved. First and foremost, I think that there need to be multiple sources used. While the primary account of this syndrome is vital, I would have to guess that more research has been done on the topic in the recent past. As others have mentioned, citation should only occur once. With respect to hyperlinking to other Wikipedia pages, I think you only need to do that once (as in the first time when that word appears). However, there are a couple sections where there are absolutely no hyperlinks, which should also be changed. At times when reading this article, it seemed clear that there was repetition occurring. This was especially seen in the description of the genetics and pathophysiology, as well as in the descriptions of how the syndrome was first discovered. Some of the material in the introductory region could definitely be included within the body of the article, as there seems to be a lot going on in that portion. There were also sections in which there were many spelling and grammatical errors that should be fairly easy to fix. The picture also seems a bit irrelevant to this page (many diseases and syndromes are dominantly inherited, so this is not unique). It would also be interesting to see if there are any treatments for this syndrome, or any other lineages in which it shows up. You talk about one family, but I'm sure it has been found in others. I would also be interested in finding out any information on current research being undertaken to better understand Flynn-Aird syndrome. I know that this could be an excellent article, so in summary: fix spelling and grammatical errors, try to avoid repetition, work on finding more sources, fix citations, move some of the introductory material around, and try to find some information on treatments, current research, etc. AlexGoldy (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything that has been said and: I'm not sure if it's necessary to list in series all the symptoms, and other things in the introduction section. I feel that that could be more general because it just looks intimidating. Without the meat of the article to explain what that means it seems to no serve the right purpose. In pathophysiology, what is a suppressed (s) gene, since there is no within wikipedia article to reference here, a general audience aimed explanation may be helpful. In the symptoms section, did you mean afflicted with and not inflicted in or at least inflicted with, and suffers should be changed to sufferers. The phrase "indicative of the kyphoscoliotic type" either doesn't fit or need to be expanded upon because again there is no way to know what that means, remember, think general audience! Sylwiahandz (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. We made the changes to the body of the article correcting any errors that you pointed out. We are going to attempt to shorten the introduction or make it a bit more broad but I feel that the information provided is necessary to introduce the reader to the topic. We will try to make alterations the best that we can. Mastroin (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be more appropriate to have the history section 1st, introducing the discoverers rather than mention at the end, and a more appropriate ending would either be something about current research, if it exists/can be found and since this is a syndrome/disease some forms of therapy or medication currently being used to treat the ailment. Try to see if you could expand and tidy up the grammar in the symptoms section because as before mentioned it is a bit repetitive, and the citations must just be referenced once. Keep up the good work Sylwiahandz (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for your comments, we changed the location of the history section and it seems to tie in better. We also brushed up on the grammar.Luhizi (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

While your article is definitely off to a great start, I would have to agree with the other comments that it can definitely be improved. First, I, too, noted some of the spelling and grammatical errors throughout the article. For example, in the Symptoms section, the past tense was used a lot, and this should be changed to the present. Doing so will increase the readability of the article. I would also agree with the comment about listing the symptoms in the Introduction. Perhaps you could only list 3-4 of the primary symptoms there, and then further list the others in the Symptoms section, as you have already done. One strength of the Symptoms section, however, is how you explained the symptoms in the relative order of appearance. By doing this, you enable the readers to visualize the progression of the disease. I also feel like you could explain certain terms and areas of your article better. For example, you list myopia as a symptom and provide a link to its page, but you could quickly explain how myopia is near-sightedness. Next, since your article is about a disease, I would highly suggest that you include a section on treatment, or, if there is a lack of information on this topic, I would just list at least the basics, including whether or not the disease is curable (although this can be implied, you might need to spell it out for non-science readers). Also, I don’t know if you would be able to find any information on this, but I think it would be great if you could include a case study of someone who has the disease. As for the comment about the picture, I would disagree. I think the picture adds to your article and, although an autosomal dominant pedigree could apply to a number of diseases, I think it gives all readers the chance to actually understand how the disease is transmitted. Another strength of your article is the structure. Although other people might disagree, I think it is better to list the symptoms before the history, as you have done. Most people are interested only in learning about how the disease manifests itself, and, by having the symptoms listed first, you allow them to find this information quickly. In short, the content of your article is really great so far, just keep working on expanding it. LWestover (talk) 9:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything said above. In the reference section, when the same reference is used, it should be the same number. You can do this easily by just giving the reference a name and referring back to that name whenever you reference the same article. You can see how to do that in the Help:Footnotes page. Also, I agree that there needs to be more than one reference. Also, there definitely needs to be a treatment section as well. A diagnosis section could be informative as well, describing how this disease would be diagnosed when you go to the doctors. As is now, the information presented seems a little thin, so it could definitely do with some bulking up. And there are some terms that should be linked that you missed. Any scientific terms should be linked. It might be a nice idea to end the page with a section of current research, if there is any ongoing research you can find. Good start though. AndyD147 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your article is good so far, but there is a noticeable lack of detail in the article as a whole. Since the exact pathophysiological mechanism of Flynn-Aird Syndrome is unknown, you should include as many of the current theories as possible and any research or experiments conducted which led to those theories. One of the interesting aspects of this disease is that it does not seem to shorten the person’s life span. Maybe you could go into more detail as to why this is the case. You could describe some of the biological mechanisms involved in the progression of the disease that are currently understood and describe how vital functions remain intact, resulting in a normal life span. Also, you should probably move the picture describing the autosomal dominance of the disease so that it is next to the genetics section instead of the references. Additional photos depicting some of the symptoms could also be added to give the reader a better grasp of the seriousness of the disorder. Additionally, you could add another section that focuses on current research into this field. Oconneia (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is a great start and with some work can be a good article. First I think the introduction is a great start that provides a good initial description of what the disease is and some of its basic characteristics. I do agree with some of the above comments that perhaps some of the symptoms could be removed from the introduction and further developed in the symptoms section. Secondly I think the article has a good initial structure with appropriate and informative subsections. Again I do agree that diagnosis and treatment sections would provide a more complete description. Another suggestion I have would be to further describe and detail the different theories regarding the pathophysiology of Flynn-Aird. Also, I would be interested in a more comprehensive comparison between Flynn-Aird and the other diseases listed (Werner, Cockayne, and Refsum). More sources would strengthen your article. Overall I think you guys have a good start and will be able to add to your article to strengthen it. Manninpk (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon initially seeing your article I was going to comment about the relative length of each section and suggest some resources that may be used to your advantage. After a half-hour of searching however, I realized that the only viable resource that I could find in any library or on any database was the source that you were already using. Many people probably complained that there was no research on their topic, but there is actually NO RESEARCH on this topic at all. However, I did take a look at the article that you guys used and it appears to me that there may be a bit more useable information available. A lot of it is very specific and overly scientific for the Wikipedia community, but even just glancing through I saw some bits of information, like the fact that “no sex predilection was apparent,” that could have been incorporated into the Wikipedia page. Some of it may be fairly specific, but I believe it could add to the overall description. So I realize that you guys did the best you could in a bad situation. However, as you have probably seen in the other posts, you need to consolidate your references into just one posting and you need to remove the linking to other articles after you have already linked to them once. Good luck. Oconnedp (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I liked the article it was informative and concise. I only have a couple remarks. In the Intro you talk about “new symptoms” that emerge as the syndrome progresses. Are there any particulars to the new symptoms - are they more intense than the symptoms in the beginning or do actual different symptoms appear? In addition, in the Pathophysiology section if you expanded on exactly what a suppressing gene is and its specific influence here would help an audience that does not have a strong background in genetics. Also, the history section is kind of a background into the disease and should probably follow the introduction. The article could maybe end with a look at future research because you end the genetics section on a hopeful note describing that it seems it can be narrowed down to one enzymatic defect. Is there anything more specific with exact defect? Or how are researchers attempting to find that one enzymatic defect? Lastly, is there any specific way people with the disorder have to live their lives – their life expectancy is not shortened but is there any specific handicap they deal with? Rampreddy (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Good start on your article! I enjoyed reading through all the sections because they each provided a good understanding of different aspects of Flynn-Aird syndrome. As a technical suggestion, I think you should refrain from linking the same term to another Wikipedia article more than once. If you link the term the first time if shows up in the article, that should be sufficient. Also, there are some minor grammatical errors in the article that you should be able to catch with a solid proof-read. As an example, in the section titled “Symptoms”, one of the sentences reads “In the third decade of the condition, suffers endured the restriction of visual fields,…” Instead of “suffers”, I think you mean to say “sufferers”. As I mentioned, these details are minor but you should try and fix them before your final article submission. As for the article itself, my first suggestion is to consistently refer to Flynn-Aird syndrome as either a disease or a syndrome. You refer to it as both throughout the article and I think this might confuse readers. In the “Pathophysiology” section, although you mention that there is no exact mechanism for the pathophysiology of Flynn-Aird syndrome, I liked the fact that you provided possible theories that could explain the underlying causes. Perhaps you could expand more on some of the points that you mentioned in the “Pathophysiology” section. Finally, I think you should consider adding at least one or two more sections to your article. The information that you have already provided is very interesting but I think there are other areas you can explore with regards to your topic. For example, perhaps you could discuss areas such as diagnosis, prognosis, or treatments towards the beginning and middle of your article. Additionally, you could mention current research that is taking place regarding your topic or perhaps you can describe specific cases of people who suffered from Flynn-Aird syndrome. I think that these sections could provide some extra body to your topic as well as provide a nice way to conclude your article. I think you are well on your way to making a great article for Flynn-Aird syndrome. If you can make some changes and additions to the article I think everyone will be very pleased with your final product. (NeuroCaroline (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

I know it’s hard to work on an article that has very little information about it – it is very hard to find useful and broad information in any databases for my article as well. I liked the image showing the autosomal dominant pedigree, but I find the location of the image a little bit awkward. Also, if you could find other appropriate images that can relate to your article may spice up your page. As for the categories, if you could include section on current research on Flynn-Aird Syndrome, that would be a great information to add in to your page. I am not sure if you could not find information on this, but most of the Wikipedia pages on disease or syndrome have prognosis, diagnosis, and management as categories, so these additional information would be another way to extend and improve your article. Debraborah (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is informative, but short; there is definitely some room for expansion here, perhaps some further research is necessary. Using multiple references would definitely help strengthen the article. Also, the references section isn’t formatted properly – make sure you fill in all the proper info about the website used in the MLA format, described on the referencing page, which I’m pretty sure is linked above near the top of this talk page. The history section is a good idea to include, but should extend beyond the case of the initially observed family into other historical cases or even more recent cases. If you could find any current research being done on the syndrome or any relevant cases in the media, I think that would certainly help put the F-A Syndrome in a broader historical context. I also noticed a few spelling and grammatical errors throughout, so I suggest reading through the article meticulously for those errors to avoid getting points off there and also for the sake of clarity (perhaps even read the article aloud to yourselves and fix anything that sounds awkward or unclear). The picture is helpful, but as mentioned in another comment above, should be placed higher up in the article layout. Lastly, I agree with most of the criticism above and believe that by integrating these suggestions your article will be much better. Keep up the good work guys! Danika paulo (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Guys, Thank you for all your comments. We will start working on them right away. As for the references, since Flynn-Aird Syndrome is such a rare disease there is an extremely limited amount of information on the topic. As a matter of fact, we have come across three papers, one being the original written by Flynn and Aird, which we used for our information. Unfortunately the other two papers are in German and Japanese. In addition, the full text of those articles are unobtainable through any of the research databases that are commonly used for scientific research. If anyone can help us get in touch with the universities that produced these papers on Flynn Aird syndrome that would definitely help us expand upon the Wiki. Please let me know if anyone can find anything. Thanks for the help. mastroin (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.187.134 (talk)

End of Boston College BI481 Project
hi ben, aziz and nick, nice job with such a limited amount of information. a few things i noticed:
 * Aird's name is misspelled towards the end of the article
 * There are several problems with singular/plural term usage
 * "Respectably" should be "respectively" when discussing the Japan and German studies.NeuroJoe (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Review
I have compared this version of the page,, from before the start of the project, with this version, , after.

Scale from 1 to 5 1 = most negative 5 = most positive

1. Is the prose clear and concise? 4: There are run-on sentences, such as the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. Aird's name is misspelled in the last section.

2. Does the article comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, and list incorporation? 4: "Syndrome" should not be capitalized, and there should not be spaces before the inline citations.

3. Is the article properly and adequately referenced? 1: This is the biggest problem. Only a single reference is cited. This is entirely insufficient. Furthermore, looking at the link provided to the abstract of that source, it does not appear to support much of the text that it purports to support. Where did this information come from?

4. Are in-line citations provided in accordance with Scientific citation guidelines? 1: See criterion 3 above, and the last two sections of the article are unsourced.

5. Does the article address the main aspects of the topic? 3: Difficult to assess, without better referencing.

6. Does the article stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? 5

7. Does the article represent viewpoints fairly and without bias? 5

8. Is the article illustrated by images that are relevant and are tagged with their proper status? 5

Overall, I think the single most important issue about this article is that much more complete sourcing is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright query
Tryptofish (talk)
 * I'm a bit puzzled by this tag. There is essentially no literature on the syndrome except the initial publication by Flynn and Aird (as a citation check shows), so it seems likely that if the article is not a copyvio of their 1965 paper, it is not a copyvio of anything. Looie496 (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but it seems WP:DUCK to me, per item #3 of my review above. There's an awful lot of information that doesn't come from the source cited, so it must have come from somewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most likely secondary or tertiary sources, rather than primary. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)