Talk:Trisomy X/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I will review this article. I'll leave some in-depth comments later. It is quite a long article so I will note it may take a while to review this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Prose, POV, and coverage
General:
 * 85-90, 5-10%, 80-90%, etc. - Per MOS:PERCENT, the percent symbol is fine. However, if it's a number range it should be an endash rather than a hyphen. I would recommend going through and changing instances of hyphens in number ranges, such as those I just listed, to endashes.
 * Fixed number ranges. Vaticidalprophet 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Check that the English variant is consistent. I see both "criticised" and "dehumanizing".
 * My 'native' English is an ENGVAR-mashup, so these are, I have to admit, always a mess. Is this in the range of MOS stuff relevant at GA level, though? Vaticidalprophet 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:ARTCON, it is recommended to stick to a single style within an article. I won't require it, as MOS is after all just a guideline, but this is highly recommended. Epicgenius (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've standardized to Oxford spelling and placed a talk template and edit notice accordingly. Vaticidalprophet 00:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Similarly, consistent quotes. I see 'superfemale' (single quote) and illegitimate product of a Graeco-Roman alliance" (double quote). Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead:
 * no symptoms significant enough to inspire formal testing. - Is "inspire" the best word for this context? I think "require" or a synonym would work better.
 * I don't think 'require' is accurate. It's very hit-or-miss whether women with trisomy X, even symptomatic cases, get karyotyped, so a phrasing that implies "this definitely happens when X or Y symptom is there" would give a false impression that it's a routine procedure. Vaticidalprophet 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I would say "inspire" is still a strange wording. How about something like "prompt"? Epicgenius (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * increased height, with an average height around 172 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in) - This may work better as a single clause like "increased average height of around 172 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in)" or something like that, but this is optional.
 * Most women with trisomy X go on to live normal lives - "go on to" is probably unnecessary here, but "live...lives" can be seen as repetitive. I suggest "Most women with trisomy X have normal lives" or something similar.
 * This has been reworded. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 21:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * cohort studies on children with sex chromosome aneuploidies which followed them into adulthood found that people with these disorders are often mildly affected - This seems like a long clause without a comma. I would rephrase this a bit, but I don't have specific suggestions at the moment.
 * I've rephrased this a bit, but I think it actually, uh, got longer. Perhaps still more readable, though. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 21:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol. That works, though. Epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Presentation:


 * 40% of girls with trisomy X aged six to thirteen are above the 90th percentile in height. - Regardless of MOS:PERCENT, I think it is a bit strange to begin a sentence with a number.
 * slightly below one standard deviation above - Also, "below...above" is unusual, I would say something like "almost one standard deviation above..."
 * Reworded. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * These differences are usually minor, and do not have an impact on the daily lives of girls and women with the condition. - I'd suggest getting rid of the comma.
 * Removed comma. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Precocious puberty has been reported,[6][23] but is not considered a characteristic of the syndrome.[3] - Likewise here.
 * In this case I do think the comma helps comprehension, due to the mid-sentence refs and the juxtaposition. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright - in this case, the current wording works fine. Epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * and some patients followed in the medical literature - Followed as in studied over a long period of time?
 * Correct -- is there a good way to make this clearer to a lay audience? <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a good way to say this without splitting it into a new sentence. "Some patients, tracked in the medical literature over several decades, have acquired advanced degrees or worked in cognitive fields."
 * After further thought, I just removed 'followed'. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * with 40% to 90% in different studies requiring it. - Does this mean, in the different groups studied?
 * I've reworded this for clarity. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The psychological portrait of trisomy X is not entirely clear, and appears to be complicated by a more severe phenotype in postnatally than prenatally diagnosed groups - The comma here could probably also be removed.
 * This is a longer sentence, so I'm borderline on keeping the comma for readability. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * but by their mid-thirties having stronger interpersonal bonds and healthy relationships - Should "having" be changed to a subject-verb, like "they had"?
 * I'm leaning towards no; I previewed the sentence with the change and felt it flowed worse. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Schizophrenia in trisomy X may be associated with intellectual disability - If I am assuming correctly, there is no conclusive evidence of such?
 * Not conclusively, but circumstantially, hence 'may'. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For instance, psychogenic stomach pains - Psychogenic is a disambiguation page.
 * Disambiguated appropriately. On the comma notes: I think this is personal style. I trend towards a slightly comma-heavy sentence structure, and I don't think any of those trend into grammatical inaccuracy. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I think the comma is fine. I also use it this way. I should have just highlighted "psychogenic" as the dab page was my sole concern with this fragment. Epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mosaicism, where both 47,XXX and other cell lines are present occurs in approximately 10% of cases. - Should there be a comma between "present" and "occurs"?
 * Fixed. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cognitive development is more typical, and long-term outcomes improved - On the contrary, I do not think this comma is necessary, as "long-term outcomes improved" isn't a complete sentence.
 * Reworded a little, although it still has a comma. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * little-understood - I also think there shouldn't be a hyphen here, since "little understood" isn't an adjective here but rather an adverb and verb.
 * Removed. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Causes:
 * Mosaic is a duplicate link.
 * This is an intentional duplink -- it's in contravention of what the MOS currently says, but I strongly suspect it's what the MOS will say in two years. Most (~60%) readers are on mobile. Readers don't generally read articles as one block, even though writers often assume they do. Because mobile readers have all sections collapsed by default, their patterns are even more jumpy/spread-out. For a concept like genetic mosaicism that's unfamiliar to most of the general population, there should (IMO) be links available anywhere a reader might reasonably be expected to begin reading the article from, like the beginning of a section. Mobile readers can't just scroll up conveniently to a link in another section that'd be nearby for a desktop reader, so an article written to be navigatable/useful to the majority of Wikipedia's audience needs to treat sections as fairly self-contained, including in links. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Trisomy X is a random event; it is not caused by lifestyle factors or parental fault - I think this sentence can be combined without using a semicolon, e.g. "Trisomy X occurs randomly and is not caused by lifestyle factors or parental fault".
 * Tweaked. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * trisomy X occurs randomly and has nothing to do with the chromosomes of the parents, and little chance of recurring in the family. - But in a minority, it isn't a random occurrence? Also, the comma after "chromosomes of the parents" may be unnecessary.
 * It isn't random in some cases (although that's a bit speculative), which the next sentence handles -- is there a way to make this clearer? <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I missed this comment, and I see now that the next sentence deals with the minority of cases which aren't random. I would basically say something like "The vast majority of cases of trisomy X occur randomly; they have nothing to do with the chromosomes of the parents and little chance of recurring in the family." Epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , done. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Diagnosis and differential diagnosis:
 * Nothing of concern here.

Prognosis:
 * while oft-delayed - Do the sources specify the magnitude to which this delay exists?
 * It's not quite quantified in the way that makes that easy to check, no. (Most reviews of long-term outcomes use the cohort studies more than anything else, and those didn't check in often enough to get an obvious picture.) <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 04:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Compared to age-matched women in the general population - Of these 37, or a different study?
 * Different study -- can you think of a good way to make that clearer? I only noticed it's abrupt on a reread. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 04:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * how about this; "Another study found that, compared to age-matched women in the general population, ..." Epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Specified accordingly. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 23:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Epidemiology:
 * Trisomy X only occurs in females, as the Y chromosome is in most cases necessary for male sexual development - Seems strange to have this paragraph be its own sentence at the end. Actually, for those of us who are not good at biology (not me, but other people), I think it is worth considering mentioning this earlier on. Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So, this bit is a bit of a WIP and an "improve between GAN and FAC" thing -- that is, when transforming the coverage from 'broad' to 'comprehensive'. There's a bit more to write in this section to get it really sparkling, but it's still a good overview of the topic. This sentence is currently set off as its own section, but I plan to expand the topic in a way that gets it reading a bit more naturally -- it's just that, at the current level of resolution, this is taking a backseat to other issues and making sure the core of the article is fully fleshed out. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I am only conducting a GA review here, not an FA review, so the standard is a bit lower. I was just pointing out that, even in good articles, it is a bit weird to see standalone sentences (but not by any means disallowed). Epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

History:
 * even at the time - "Even" may not be necessary here.
 * It was more criticised after the fact, so I specified 'even' to make it clear that even then they thought it was weird, even though now we think it's more weird. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * have since been criticized - Within how many decades did these come to be viewed as dehumanizing?
 * Good question! Not really discussed in sources in a way that lets you obviously track a timeline (see S&C section noting that it's not very sociologically researched), so I went evasive on dates. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * until the death of one of the researchers - same for both cohorts?
 * I only know about Denver. I've clarified it as that. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 21:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * due to the then-present perception that XYY syndrome was associated with violent criminality - this could probably be recast in active voice, e.g. "because [the public] perceived that XYY syndrome was associated with violent criminality" or something like that, but it's optional. It just read a bit clunkily to me.
 * condition's discoverer Patricia Jacobs - I feel like this can be mentioned earlier in the section.
 * Moved up to the beginning of the section. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * professor of pediatrics - how about "pediatrics professor"?
 * Reworded. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * around one-fifth of patients at the clinic have trisomy X - Is this when it was founded, or currently? Or is the clinic intending to seek patients for which one-fifth have trisomy X?
 * Clarified the date -- I don't have a more recent number. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Society and culture:
 * Awareness of these conditions is accentuating - Is "accentuating" the right word?
 * Reworded. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * in the late 2010s, state governments across the United States declared May to be National X & Y Chromosome Variation Awareness Month. - Kind of unrelated, but some or all?
 * I can't get a good idea of exactly how many; the cited is for Massachusetts (which specifies 'National') and Georgia (which doesn't). <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, in that case I would specify something like "several state governments...". Epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 04:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Campaigns led by parents and caregivers of children with sex chromosome aneuploidies to raise awareness and increase available support made significant strides over the course of the 2010s to increase awareness,[82] decrease stigma, and improve the state of research.[85] - The portion of the sentence before the first comma is a little confusing because of the lack of punctuation. I get what this is saying: "The parents and caregivers of children with sex chromosome aneuploidies have created campaigns to raise awareness and increase available support. These campaigns made significant strides over the course of the 2010s to increase awareness, decrease stigma, and improve the state of research." Maybe a wording like this would be better.
 * Reworded. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In other animals:
 * Six cases of trisomy X have been recorded in dogs, for which the karyotype is 79,XXX compared to 78,XX for an euploid female dog.[87] Unlike in humans, trisomy X in dogs is strongly linked to infertility, either primary anestrus or infertility with an otherwise normal estrous cycle. - if only six cases have been recorded, wouldn't the characterization of "strongly linked" suffer from small sample bias? Especially since these six cases may have been severe enough to be recorded, and that these cases resulted in infertility. However, I understand this may be what the source said.
 * As far as I can get from the sources, they're assumed fully connected. (So far as I can tell, in all nonhuman species where it's been observed trisomy X is always associated with infertility, although this is slightly too OR to say in wikivoice; the thing you pointed out with the other clause here will hopefully make it a bit clearer.) <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to domesticated cattle, trisomy X has been observed in river buffalo. - Any effects of this? Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The only symptom I could clearly associate with it in river buffalo is again infertility, so making that clearer in the article. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see. Both of these comments make sense. Epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Images and copyright

 * All images are licensed properly (though they don't contain alt text, which is optional for the purposes of the criteria). Image captions are appropriate.
 * Looking through Earwig's copyvio detector, I can't immediately find any.

General comments

 * There have not been any edit wars in the past few months. Actually, not too many edits at all before the nominator expanded the article.
 * Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I will take a final look in the morning. Epicgenius (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)