|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Aniridia.
|WikiProject Genetics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Medicine / Neurology / Ophthalmology||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|A fact from Aniridia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 2 March 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/March.||
The initial image (Aniridia.jpg) should be put back in the article since the current one (023-p-039-9426.jpg) offers no real perspective on what the condition actually is. People now viewing the article only see a confusing collage of repulsive photos. I know that the former is not good quality, so the current one should be placed further down in this article and in the right heading (PAX6, probably). As for the label of the first one, mentioning that the man is Scandinavian is of little relevance. I will most likely do this unless I receive a response soon. Alkados (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Quote from Page:
Eyes of a Scandinavian male wherein the iris is not present due to aniridia. Notice the lack of common eye color as the eye appears to be one large pupil.
In other words, the eye is black. Do you think>???
Or, in english, please? 184.108.40.206 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The image and its caption are poor quality. The image is out of focus and it is not apparent in either one that the iris is absent. "appears to be one large pupil" implies that in fact the iris is present. --Una Smith (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC) You make no sense, most with the disease have no apparent iris (most have the stump which you can only see if you have a slit lamp and are a Dr.) Yes just large pupils. Take your iris off and see what your eye looks like, your iris constricts due to the amount of light present and then you see more black right? You make no sense at all. picture is pretty clear and article too.
"It is associated with poor development of the retina at the back of the eye preventing normal vision development. Aniridia does not cause lack of vision."
Is it just me, or do these two sentences, right next to each other at the beginning of the article contradict each other? If this condition prevents normal vision, then how is it that it does not cause lack of vision? What is abnormal about the vision of a person with this condition?
I have changed the last sentence of the summary to clarify. Forgive me, but I am very new to editing Wikipedia, and cleaning up this article more than this small correction seems like it would be beyond me. I have read some of the sources cited in order to clarify, but I'm not even sure which, if any of the sources cited would be considered legitimate.
While I agree that the two sentences you referred above do seem out of place there is an important distinction to be made here. Aniridia does NOT cause lack of vision on its own. Aniridia can be associated w/ many other complications such as poor development of the retina in which case there is a lack of normal vision development. With the way the current article summary is phrased it is impossible for the average person to make this distinction.