Talk:XYYY syndrome/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bibeyjj (talk · contribs) 18:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Opening Summary
Hi ! I'm happy to take on the review of this article. I remember working with you previously on 17q12 microdeletion syndrome, and see that you have also created and nominated Pentasomy X - thank you for the very significant work you have done on these articles relating to chromosomal abnormalities.

As with my previous review, I will be using Template:GABox to keep track of general progress. Comments on each criterion (including why it passes, is put on hold, or fails) will be listed under relevant headings below. I should have good time availability this week to respond to queries, so I hope that this article will pass quickly. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey again, Bibeyjj! I haven't been in the best of health lately so I may not be prompt, but I'll try not to leave you hanging. To anticipate something under the 2s I think you're likely to bring up -- yes, the two reviews the article takes a lot from are very hard to find. I ended up getting them though WP:RX interlibrary loan, and it took a couple weeks. I'm happy to email the PDFs, because it's likely to be the quickest way you'll find them. Vaticidalprophet 03:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Thank you for your update. I'm sorry to hear about your health - rest assured that I am happy to give you more time to respond to queries if you need this. I'm happy to trust your judgement on the 2 review articles - I have managed to find URLs for them (albeit only the abstract is given). At the moment, the major queries are reference formatting (links), whether there should be a "Prognosis" section, and whether an additional image would be helpful. Other than that, the article is doing well. Hoping you are well, Bibeyjj (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

1a
Pass. I cannot identify any issues with spelling, punctuation, or grammar. The majority of the text is broadly understandable to a lay audience, although I would like to see a few more Wikilinks. Prose is clear and concise, handling subject matter well. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

1b
Pass. All core WP:MOS policies are complied with. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD complied with. The lead is an accessible overview, covering the main points of the article. The alternative name is handled correctly. The length is appropriate.
 * WP:LAYOUT complied with. Headings and order are formatted correctly. The absence of an "External links" section is notable, and may be considered in future - this does not affect the order, which is correct.
 * WP:MEDORDER "Diseases or disorders or syndromes" complied with. Clearly follows the recommended order of headings. The notable exception is "Comparison with XYY syndrome", which is appropriate.
 * WP:WORDS complied with. Terminology and phrasings are unbiased, also complying with WP:NPOV. Phrases are suitably specific. No obscene language is included.
 * WP:WAF is not applicable.
 * WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists is complied with. No such lists are included, and none are needed.

2a
Pass. All 23 references are inline references, and are formatted correctly following WP:LAYOUT. Bibeyjj (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

2b
Hold. The reliance on primary sources is acceptable for such a rare disease. Sources are well represented in the prose of the article. There are no statements which fall under WP:Likely to be challenged. References also comply with WP:Scientific citation guidelines, referencing whenever necessary, and in the correct format (complying with the table below). A few references would benefit from a link to a website, with suggestions listed below. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 2 lacks a link to its source. A link can be found at https://europepmc.org/article/med/7888137.
 * 3 lacks a link to its source. A link can be found at https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/96/4/672.short.
 * 5 lacks a link to its source. A link can be found at https://europepmc.org/article/med/1296523.
 * 8 lacks a link to its source. A link can be found at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ973042.
 * 19 lacks a link. A link can be found at http://hdl.handle.net/10822/547929.
 * 19a lacks a link. A link can be found at http://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=PASCAL83X0337989.
 * 19b lacks a link. I haven't managed to find a link.
 * 19c lacks a link. A link can be found at https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.1320440535.


 * Resolved all the resolvable linking issues. Vaticidalprophet 05:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Pass. All of the links that could be added have been added. I can see no other issues with referencing. Bibeyjj (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

2c
Pass. Complies with WP:NOR. All information is verifiable to references, with a good coverage of inline references in the prose. The high reliance on primary sources is explained by the rarity of the disease - many of them also include a non-systematic literature review, which improves their reliability. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

2d
Pass. The article has been put through 5 different online plagiarism tools, which detected no plagiarism. The article follows WP:SUMMARY, thereby avoiding copyright infringement from its sources. There are no large sections of text without an inline reference. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

3a
Hold. Most of the major aspects are covered following headings recommended by WP:MEDORDER "Diseases or disorders or syndromes". Whilst content on "Prognosis" has been mentioned, it might be worth sectioning this. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Taking a glance again at my better sources, I don't think a separate prognosis section is quite viable. The prognosis content in Presentation is blended in with the rest of it, while there isn't really anything at all on long-term outcomes as their own thing. Vaticidalprophet 10:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Pass. I do understand what you mean about the lack of prognostic data, and that this would make a "Prognosis" section very short and hard to reference. As such, I am happy with the current coverage of the major aspects of the subject. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

3b
Pass. Complies with WP:LENGTH. The article includes appropriate information to a suitable level of detail. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

4
Pass. Clearly follows WP:NPOV, handling issues (such as historical stereotypes of aggression in poly-Y syndromes) sensitively and with due context. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

5
Pass. No edit warring since the article's creation on 18 March 2021. 3 reverted edits in this time, all appropriately reverted by the nominator and not contested. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

6a
Pass. "File:Peripheral-blood-karyotype-result-belonging-to-the-subject-compatible-with-48-XYYY.png" is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license, and was uploaded by the article nominator. I have checked the original source at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ccr3.1311, which shows that the image is available under this license. "File:Picture of right hand.jpg" is licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0. If "File:XXXX syndrome.svg" is also used, this is also available under the CC BY 4.0 license. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

6b
Hold. The current image is suitable and has a good caption. I appreciate how difficult it is to find appropriate images for fairly niche articles such as this, but I wonder if you would consider including an image of a nondisjunction event like you did for Tetrasomy X. In fact, that particular image (File:XXXX syndrome.svg) would be appropriate just to show the principle of a nondisjunction event. I'll leave this for you to decide, and am happy to pass this criterion no matter your final opinion. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The nondisjunction images were made by another user a while ago (not sure how long 'a while' is, but they were in those articles when I first read them c. 2010-2011). On the timescale of one GA review, I don't plan to see if the original creator is still active, and think using an image from another article might be somewhat confusing to readers/inconsistent with other articles -- the most relevant comparison, XXYY syndrome, does have its own image. I also can't admit to any graphic design skills of my own. I might look into it in the longer term, though, because it's a worthwhile suggestion. Vaticidalprophet 10:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hold. I have checked the edits of the original creator of "File:XXXX syndrome.svg" and the related graphics - the user does not appear to be very active anymore. Whilst a graphic of the particular nondisjunction events of XYYY would be nice, I accept that this would be very difficult to achieve without experience of graphic editing. The article already gives a good description of how XYYY arises, and any image would be supplementary to that description, therefore non-essential. As such, I am happy with there being no image of nondisjunction.

One other query I had was whether to include an image of 1 or 2 common symptoms, particularly clinodactyly (which is noted in a number of the case studies). "Presentation" is already quite a significant section, so highlighting 1 particular common symptom may be helpful. What do you think?


 * I added a picture of clinodactyly (which is good advice, because it's one that I keep forgetting to actually define in articles). Should be decently illustrated now. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 18:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Pass. Thank you for adding this image, with a good caption. This all seems good. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Concluding Summary
Pass. Hi. Congratulations - XYYY syndrome has passed Good Article Review. Thank you for the work you have put into the article, nearly single-handedly getting it to this standard. I'm satisfied that all 12 criteria have been met. Hoping you are well, Bibeyjj (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)