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 Lightbursttalk 18:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment: This is a CALC situation, per WT:MED#CALC and prevalences. These are two very recent literature reviews inspired by the discovery of new cases, but they don't know each other exists, so they each report seven. "Men" could be tweaked if it's considered misleading re. age, but I think it's the least bad option -- "males" is clinical (but arguably what we should go for, so, work it out in post?) and not specifying sex seems very inclined to mislead readers, who (despite my best efforts at DYK to rectify this) do not universally understand sex chromosome aneuploidies off the top of their heads.
Overall: @Vaticidalprophet: I think you've met all the requirements pretty comfortably, including the QPQ review. Well done at explaining this tricky situation, and to be honest, I agree with what both you and @Ajpolino: wrote in the original discussion: accuracy is the most important thing here, and maybe you could just add a brief footnote to further justify the eight-case count. About the hook itself, I actually think you should stick to "males", since the first cited article explicitly acknowledges two cases in infants, and you used that term in the article's lead section, anyway... Still, great job overall! Oltrepier (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I came up with two ALTs overnight while thinking about the optimal-terminology thing, which I think are both usable:
I think this is reasonable promoter-preference. I was thinking about a footnote during my original write-through, but when writing out the History section I noticed this also gets directly at the CALC ("five known cases" at the end of the 20th century + "three known cases in the 21st century"). Do you think that section is reasonably clear enough re. showing one's work? Vaticidalprophet 02:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Very good point about that section! I think we should be fine, then. However, there's another issue I forgot to address... Since the first officially registered case traces back to 1963 (and that patient was already an adult), it is likely that at least one or two of these patients are not with us anymore, so I'm not sure if present simple ("are") could be the right verb form for the hook... What about using present perfect? Oltrepier (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: I think you've met all the requirements pretty comfortably, including the QPQ review. Well done at explaining this tricky situation, and to be honest, I agree with what both you and @Ajpolino: wrote in the original discussion: accuracy is the most important thing here, and maybe you could just add a brief footnote to further justify the eight-case count. About the hook itself, I actually think you should stick to "males", since the first cited article explicitly acknowledges two cases in infants, and you used that term in the article's lead section, anyway... Still, great job overall! Oltrepier (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: ALT0c looks good to go. Thank you for your patience and input! Oltrepier (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)