Talk:Roberts syndrome

Comments

I've added projects, categories, etc. to this article. This is a good start. You'll need an section at the very beginning that describes the disease. What does it look like? What is its history? Who discovered it and when? etc. Your citations also need to follow the proper Wikipedia format. You can use the {{cite web}} template, but I also "fixed" the ones in the lead for you. Generally, the lead summarizes the article, and covers the highlights of the article. thus, this lead needs to be expanded to include more than 3 sentences saying in different ways that this is a rare disease, and another few listing its different names. The different names are fairly unimportant, right? What is important is (1) the rarity (2) the discovery (3) the indicators and (4) the treatment/maintenance. You should link things that are covered in other wikipedia articles. You might look at Down syndrome for an example of a well done article (or well done at one time). Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello! This is Sara from class. I read your article and I think it is really good! It was really interesting to me because my major is biology and I really like this stuff. The section "symptoms" was really great and interesting. You did a good job describing the medical terms in words that everyone can understand. In the lead section, I think you should put the other names that Robert's syndrome is know as first so when people are searching for the disease, they can the see the other names it is referred to immediately. Also, the "Nomenclature" section should be the first one under the lead too, to avoid confusion. You could definitely switch the order of your sections around to make the article flow better but I don't know if it is necessary. When you're talking about the genetics, you may want to include a picture of an autosomal recessive pedigree. You can find one by searching in wiki commons or you can just look at my page Neuroacanthocytosis because I also have one. In the part where you are describing cell division, I would say something like, "Each chromosome is copied and then attaches to its newly synthesized match. After all of the chromosomes are matched, the spindle fibers from the cell attach to the matched chromosome's centromere and move the chromosomes throughout cell division so they segregate correctly into the newly formed cells." Then you can talk about how the mutation affects it. I think that explains it a little more without going too in depth on the subject. In my hereditary section, I talked a lot about the mode of inheritance (homozygosity, carries, frequency of acquiring the disease, etc.) so if you want to take a look at mine you're more than welcome to, although I don't know if that is the direction you want to take for your article! Regardless of what you decide, you have a great article! Good luck working on it and see you in class!Saralo16 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

comments

Your bibliography should be alphabetical, and there shouldn't be any bare links. Incorporate the links with the brackets (single brackets) on the title of the article. Leave a space between the link and the title, and end with the ]. I added some named ref links on your citations to consolidate it some what. You can either do that, or use a shortened form of the citation. I see you're going through and editing for clarity. You'll need more wikilinks as well, to other articles that explain some of the technical material. The names might not have the same wording that you want to use, so you then use the [[name of article|your text]] Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Lots of issues. My main concern is that there are so many lists that could easily be turned into prose

• There are only six footnotes in the whole article, and a few improperly-formatted references at the bottom.
• The third paragraph of "Heredity" is unsourced entirely.
• The "symptoms" section would probably better as prose. "Symptoms include x, y and z." No need to describe just what x, y, and z are since you'll be linking to the articles on each symptom anyway.
• "Diagnosis" and "Differential diagnosis" would also be better off in prose.
• "Cytogenetic testing" is unsourced.
• No need to use "are listed below" in the article at all.
• "Clinical description" is probably better off in prose as well.
• The prose is very choppy and disorganized throughout. I don't know much about things medical, but I get the feeling that this is barely even scratching the surface of what could be covered.

This article, in my opinion, has a very long way to go before it could reach GA. I would call it start-class at best. Reviewer: Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)