Talk:Okamoto syndrome

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 08:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's start with the criteria.

Well-Written

• It uses technical that it isn't clear to me. Try to use the Efn template. Like what is "autosomal dominant multi-system genetic condition", Hydronephrosis is understandable if you glide over the link, but what is a "congenital hydronephrosis", "Impaired autonomic syndrome", "HPNRPK"? This doesn't make sense to any broad audience. And what type of skeletal abnormalities this disease do? - Imagine this is a conversation, the one you are speaking with won't understand all of those terms, try to fix this issue with the template I suggested.
• In rest the content is encyclopedic and the prose is clear except the terminology that is a bit hard to understand.
• Fortunately, I didn't found any WP:Words to watch. And it looks pleasant for those who have OCD or any obsessive design-perfection disorders (Not an actual word).
• intellectual disability and characteristic facial features, try to add a comma after "disability" as both of those symptoms aren't the same thing like: "Minister of Education and Research".
• To the sentence below "Treatment", try to write "The treatment" as "Treatment" isn't a person or something that you shouldn't use the.
• Mutations in HNRNPK that have been reported include, try to add a comma after "reported".

Verifiability

• Reference [1], it won't allow me to get a full version of it.
• Reference [8], it doesn't show exactly if it been discovered at Osaka Women and Children's Hospital and doesn't show the low-set ears syndrome.
• Most of this article are based on the citations and references which is fine, but about the Ref [8] and [1].. please tell me if I did something wrong in searching those two.
• I didn't see any reference to tell me that the unibrow is growing or the eye defects that are symptoms to this disease.
• The article doesn't have copyright violations, good job at wording it.

Broad in its coverage

• It focus mainly on the disease, that's alright.
• Most of the details are necessary to see how it acts, so it's also alright here.

Others

• The article is neutral.
• Stable, as there is no one editing it since last week.
• The illustrated kid is alright.

I'm going to put this article on hold and then after all preparation are ready I'm going to put a second opinion as I'm doubting that I did everything 100% here. Editoneer (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Response

@Editoneer: Thank you for reviewing.

As per the well-written criterion:

• I will try to clarify "autosomal dominant" with some notes about how it is inherited. "Multi-system" was an attempt to simplify; I put it in the lead sentence to convey the fact that the condition affects multiple systems as soon as possible, before explaining each symptom. As for "genetic condition", there is little I can do to further explain that fact. I'll try to improve the definition of hydronephrosis in the lead, and I will try to expand the definition in the body. "Congenital" just means from birth; in the body, it says "born with hydronephrosis". I will also try to clarify "impaired autonomic control". The nature of HNRNPK is explained in the lead and body, but I will split and simplify its sentences. I'm not sure if I could fit any more about the skeletal abnormalities in the lead without pushing the length and due weight limit; they are a varied feature, with lots of different abnormalities, but they are fully explained in the body. Hopefully, I will be able to avoid using notes, which are not common in medical articles (and are not printer-friendly), however if I have to use them, I'll use HTML like .
• I will go through and try to simplify as much of the content as I can.
• This is called the serial comma, and since it is not common/necessary in British English (which is my language, and thus currently the language of the article), it's not necessary to add.
• Treatment is also an uncountable noun, so it doesn't always need the article; this use is grammatical and can be found on articles like Lung cancer. I used this form because there isn't an established course of treatment for the condition yet; there isn't "the" treatment – there is only general "treatment", currently.
• Unfortunately, to add a comma after "reported" here would not be grammatical. See here for some examples.

As per the verifiability criterion:

• Reference [1]: per WP:Sourceaccess, citations do not necessarily need to be freely accessible to be verifiable; however, you can access that citation for free using Sci-Hub.
• Reference [8]: using Sci-Hub, you can see that the first page of that source notes Osaka Medical Center and Research Institute for Maternal and Child Health, which is part of Osaka Women's and Children's Hospital. Low-set ears is featured on the second page of the source.
• The unibrow and bulging eyes are cited in sources [3] and [8]. Source [3] mentions "Prominent brow" and "bulging eyes", and source [8] mentions "Synophrys", which is the medical term for a unibrow, and "Prominent eyes". They are also observable in the images of source [8].

I will get back to you once I've completed these updates. Thanks again for reviewing. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me all of this, I will be more careful next time. Editoneer (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It is well-written (except the very technical terms) and Verifiability passes. Editoneer (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Editoneer: It's no worries at all. I didn't know about Sci-Hub a couple of years ago. I've done a round of clarifications. I will probably go through and do some more, but let me know what you think. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel this is the final fix.

• "Low tone muscle" seems to be self-explanatory.
• We might need to define "congenital" as "con" and "genital" the reader won't think about "birth" when they don't know this kind of technological latin.
• People won't know what "dysmolity" mean and might be explanatory if we open and close a paranthesis containing "stomach disfunction" and probable about Autonomic Disease "(The body doesn't work propiely/malfunctions)".
• In rest is alright. Editoneer (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Editoneer: I replaced the "congenital" with "from before birth", though it is still part of the later name "congenital heart defects"; I'm not sure what I can do about this (I could completely remove the "congenital" if you really want me to). I also replaced the "dysmotility" with "problems with movement in the digestive system" and added "nervous" to "autonomic". I also added some examples of the skeletal abnormalities to the lead. Additionally, I clarified why the condition is autosomal dominant and added some info to the body about recurrence risk. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

As I put this as a second opinion, I think we need to do this quick before it gets a on review status.

• Replace "Congenital heart defects" with "Birth heart defects" and done. Editoneer (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Editoneer: I removed "congenital", because that form would not have been grammatical. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I see the article improved as I told you about the "broad audience"'s importance, that's nice and I like to see how the article grew in details. Anyways the submission still remains in second opinion as I have self-doubt problems if I did it right or wrong in reviewing articles. Editoneer (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Editoneer:, your review is good and standard, but what struck me was how short it was compared to what I presumed the article length was based on the lead. However, it just turns out that the lead is really long but the article isn't. @SUM1: This needs fixing - lead should not just reflect article content but also its length. This does also make me worry that the article does not go into sufficient depth - e.g. the section on 'Heart' is one sentence just listing some heart defects people with the syndrome may have. I would really expect to see more on how the syndrome can cause these, how they interact with other effects of the syndrome, how they impact life, how they can be treated, perhaps on how the relationship to the syndrome was discovered for each, etc. Even just some more detail on what each of the heart conditions is should be added. This article doesn't really give enough detail for anybody not familiar with the syndrome and other related aspects to learn, and yet the longest section is the lead. Needs more work. Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: About lead length, see my reply below. About the heart; there is no info. This is a very rare and recently described syndrome. The sources available do not provide for that. I will try to make some short explanations as to what each defect is, but unfortunately this article provides full coverage of all reliable published sources on the subject. You will not find more info on how Okamoto syndrome causes these symptoms looking outside of Wikipedia.

"3a. addresses the main aspects of the topic. [...] The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."

· • SUM1 • · (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Going further on the lead vs. the body of the article, one of the Well-written GA criteria in 1b is MOS:LEAD, so this is a requirement, not a nicety, and should be highlighted for fixing as part of a review. The MOS:LEADLENGTH section indicates that the lead should be one or two paragraphs, not four large ones; there shouldn't be anything significant in the lead that is not also in the body of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: There is nothing in the lead that isn't in the body. They aren't "large" paragraphs (this is large; 5 on a good article as well). MOS:LEAD allows for up to 4 paragraphs, and the paragraph count is only a "rule of thumb". My lead follows the "definition, cause, treatment, epidemiology" standard set by other medical articles like Plantar fasciitis or Noonan syndrome (both 13,000 characters, well below the 30,000 MOS:LEAD rule of thumb). It is intended to provide a short summary that can stand alone in place of the article. Another article I wrote, CDK13-related disorder, got passed with the same length lead. Despite this, if you insist I trim it down, I will try, but please tell me how I can do that without leading to confusion by omission. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead length is not something to really be budged on. My recommendation is to not try and include everything in it. It's half the article's prose. Kingsif (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Not wanting to pile on, but it should be relatively easy to trim. You don't need to explain what hydronephrosis is if it is linked and explained in the body. You also don't need to go into so much detail of the characteristics in the lead either. For example the first paragraph could probably be trimmed to Okamoto syndrome (OS), also known as Au–Kline syndrome (AKS), is a rare autosomal dominant genetic condition characterised by congenital hydronephrosis, low muscle tone, heart defects and intellectual disability. Characteristic facial features include downturned ears, downturned mouth and drooping eyelids (ptosis). without losing a hell of a lot. If you go through each paragraph and condense it to the important details and then combine some related ones together you should have a nice concise lead. Also, not that its a requiremnt, but you generally don't need cites in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs) 04:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn, Kingsif, and BlueMoonset: To try to nudge things along, I've trimmed the lead a bit, mostly following Aircorn's suggestion above. This review is the oldest in the GAN Biomed queue now, and I can no longer live with the suspense. Is there anything besides lead length you would like to see addressed? I'm sure between SUM1 and I, we can clean this up relatively quickly. Thanks all. Ajpolino (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Besides the coverage, perhaps make the signs and symptoms a sub-section of diagnosis? I don't know if that's usually done, but it seems logical. Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed your coverage concern above. Thinking about it, and should be able to do some cleanup by mid-week. Thanks for the quick response! Ajpolino (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Woof, real life has reared its ugly head. Re-opening at my day job has left me much busier than expected. I'm unlikely to have time to beef up some of the mini-sections any time soon. Hopefully someone else can jump in, otherwise feel free to close this without hearing from me. Sorry to flake out on you! I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries. @Ajpolino: I think I might close this, but also as an opportunity to allow it to be developed without the pressure of a reviews (and reviewers) watching it all. I'll stay out of helping update it in case you'd like me to review when it's nominated again. Kingsif (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)