Talk:Beck–Fahrner syndrome

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beck–Fahrner syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Good afternoon Arp 142, I will be reviewing Beck–Fahrner syndrome today. Unfortunately, the article is a long way from meeting one of the Good article criteria, and for that reason is not ready to become a Good Article at this time. I am referring in particular to criterion 1a: "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience". Currently, the article is highly technical and difficult to read. Additionally, there are several sentences which are incomplete or are structured in a way that is grammatically incorrect. Wikipedia, and Good Articles in particular, should be written for a lay audience; that is, for those who do not understand the jargon of the specific field that is being written about. In particular, the long lists of symptoms and syndromes, the highly complex description of the genetics of the disorder, and the use of shorthand like "differential" make the article inaccessible to a general audience. Additionally, the final section on management is written in a manner that is nonconforming to Wikipedia's encyclopedic style, instead leaning towards the style of a how-to guide or a treatment handbook.

I hope that these brief comments give you a direction in which to continue improving and editing the article. It is a great start so far and gives solid information on a new and complicated syndrome! This is valuable material that I am sure many people are glad you have taken the time to compile. I hope that you will continue to put your knowledge and expertise to use and keep improving this article or others. If you have any questions or would like more comprehensive input on how to improve the article, or if you would like another review later once it has been improved, please don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. I'm happy to help in any capacity that I can. Fritzmann (message me) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles to compare to

@Strange Orange: here are two Good Articles with a similar topic to this one. I recommend looking at them for inspiration on writing style and to see if you have covered everything (satisfying the "Broad" criterion).

• Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia
• Andersen–Tawil syndrome

Fritzmann (message me) 20:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beck–Fahrner syndrome/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Strange Orange, a very belated welcome to Wikipedia! I'm thrilled to see a "new" editor interested in medical topics. I'll be happy to talk on this review, and will get through it as quickly as I can. I'll list concerns related to the six good article criteria below. Ajpolino (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Well-written

• Signs & symptoms - Is there any way to make with neuroimaging studies occasionally revealing non-specific findings clearer (without making it too much longer)? Right now I suspect it would be meaningless to most readers.

Tried to make it more meaningful for general readers with "Affected individuals do not exhibit specific abnormalities in neuroimaging studies". We can maybe cut this sentence out if it is not adding any value to most readers. Strange Orange (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Diagnosis - to identify mutations or variants... - "Mutations" vs. "variants" - language is evolving here, and I understand folks make a distinction between these two terms in various ways. Is there a distinction you're trying to make here? If not, you can just cut "or variants" (since you use "mutation" throughout).

That is a good point. Done.

• Minor copyediting suggestions, not required for GA status:
  • They can occur de novo from new genetic mutations... "de novo from new" is redundant.

Agreed. Done.

2. Verifiable

• Arbitrarily selecting four references to check:
  • Levy, et al. (2021):
    • Can you point out where while ear involvement may result in hearing loss is supported? Is it just patient 1 from Seyama, et al.? If so, I'm not sure what Levy, et al. is doing for this sentence.

I am not sure why it was there. I may have become confused while attempting to piece it together and added that. Now removed.

• • • What's the purpose of referencing Sadikovic, et al. (2021) in the "Diagnosis" paragraph that describes the Levy, et al. (2021) paper?

To clarify that it is not uncommon to utilize episignatures and DNA methylation testing in cases like this. It does not contribute to the article particularly though. Removed.

• • MedGen - It looks like this is just a reprint of the OMIM entry description. Probably the two references to this should be replaced by references to the OMIM article?

Replaced.

• • Fahrner, GeneReviews:
    • Is The signs and symptoms may vary among individuals due to differences in gene expression and partial loss of gene function directly supported by the source? If it's intended to be kind of a WP:BLUESKY statement, I can probably get behind that as well.

Supported by "The above observations suggest that TET3-BEFAHRS is an autosomal dominant condition with variable expressivity and hypomorphic alleles that sometimes mimic autosomal recessive inheritance as opposed to true autosomal recessive inheritance" and other examples. Maybe not very directly, so somewhat of a BLUESKY (lovely name for an essay!). Strange Orange (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• • What's the purpose of reference 11 (Richards, et al. 2015)?

To clarify that it is standard practice to diagnose rare genetic conditions using interpretation of variants when an affected individual is symptomatic. But you are right; it does not add to the article specifically. Now removed.

• Otherwise references look good. Reliable sources. Seems like a good survey of the limited literature available.

3. Broad in its coverage

• Is it worth a sentence to note how the syndrome got its name? I assume it's for the David Beck and Jill Fahrner listed as authors of two of the sources?

I would presume so. This mentions that Fahrner's lab "led the international collaboration to delineate Beck-Fahrner syndrome, which she previously referred to as TET3 deficiency". I cannot find a source that explicitly mentions that it is named after David Beck and Jill Fahrner. I am not sure how to approach that. Strange Orange (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Otherwise the article seems to broadly cover the topic.

4. Neutral

• Seems appropriate.

5. Stable

• Yes

6. Illustrated

• The three images are appropriately licensed and uploaded to Commons. It's my personal opinion that the lower half of File:Beck–Fahrner syndrome or TET3 deficiency episignature.png doesn't add much to the article and could be cropped out. But I won't insist on that being done for this review.

That's all for me! The article is in great shape. Thank you for the interesting read. If you could just clarify a few things (listed above) I think we can wrap this up as a "pass". Best, Ajpolino (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendations! I have implemented them except for how it got its name because I was not sure about how to proceed with that. Strange Orange (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries, that's fair enough. I'll update the GA templates and you should get a message from ChristieBot shortly. Thanks again for the interesting read. I hope to see more articles from you going forward! Best, Ajpolino (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 21:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that approximately only 50 individuals have been diagnosed with Beck–Fahrner syndrome? Source: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8235956/canberra-girl-one-of-only-50-in-world-with-rare-syndrome/
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Strange Orange (talk). Self-nominated at 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Beck–Fahrner syndrome; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I always love seeing rare diseases make it to GA/DYK. Checked both accounts, no QPQ necessary yet (This appears to be their first DYK). Page was recently promoted to GA on Feb 18th with no issues in the review outwithstanding. The source The Canberra Times checks out both for reliability and verifiability. Spot checks for copy-vios finds nothing, Earwig seems to be down for me at the moment. Hook is interesting and well written, I think 'approximately only' is a bit clunky but I'll leave this as an optional change since it doesn't detract much from the snappiness of the hook. Passing DYK. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 20:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)