Wikipedia:Peer review/Down syndrome/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Down syndrome[edit]

Previous peer review
Toolbox
(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's one of the most popular disability articles and I'd like to get it to GA status as part of this crazy idea. While I'm quite happy taking stuff to GA, I'm fairly inexperienced with medical articles so it would be great if someone could bring some fresh eyes to this article. :)

Thanks, Fayedizard (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from JS:
  • Many children with Down syndrome who have received family support, enrichment therapies and tutoring manage to graduate from high school and are able to do paid work,[8] and some participate in post-secondary education as well.[9] Early childhood intervention, screening for common problems, medical treatment where indicated, a conducive family environment, and vocational training can improve the overall development of children with Down syndrome. Education and proper care will improve quality of life significantly, despite genetic limitations.[10] - it sounds like a positive spin, maybe needs to be made slightly less "optimistic".
This has been moved around a fair bit - partly because I realised it was in the lede and not the main article - the lede version has been significantly reduced and a less reduced (but quite reworded) version appears in 'management'. Fayedizard (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • These health factors can contribute to a shorter life expectancy for people with Down syndrome, in recent decades, the life expectancy among persons with Down syndrome has increased significantly up from 12 years in 1912, to 60 years.[21] - there is a writing mistake here with the comma and sentencing, and also it sounds a bit like "positive spin".
Reworded.Fayedizard (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Most individuals with Down syndrome have intellectual disability in the mild (IQ 50–70) to moderate (IQ 35–50) range,[23] with individuals having Mosaic Down syndrome typically 10–30 points higher.[24] The use of IQ tests for individuals with Down syndrome has been criticised on the grounds that the educator's low expectations and the fact that IQ tests do not take into account accompanying physical disabilities, such as hearing and vision impairment that would slow the test-taking performance.[25] - this again looks like some attempt to neutralize the IQ test and put a positive spin, perhaps this could be rewritten to mention both the fact that IQ tests may be flawed, and the possibly flawed results, without making it look like it is "point of view".
Reworded :) Fayedizard (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Too technical - the article's medical content is presented in rather a technical way, with a lot of specialized terms. Particularly the part right after "Signs and Symptoms" could be explained a lot less technically.
I've not touched this point - but I'm going to call on the MEDRES people to see if they have have a look at this paragraph in particular :) thanks for shining a light on this one....Fayedizard (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Recently, researchers have created transgenic mice with most of human chromosome 21 (in addition to the normal mouse chromosomes).[58] - it seems tacked in there, what is the relevance of this?
I dropped the text. :) Fayedizard (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hope this helps. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Churn and change:
  • On WP, we rely on secondary sources, not primary sources. Primary sources are articles containing original research, which may be reports of new studies, meta studies, or new math or calculations. Secondary sources are either reports published in magazines or newspapers with a general readership, or reviews published of earlier papers published in technical magazines. We rely on secondary sources for two primary reasons: 1. They are written for lay people, and hence it is easy to verify citations. 2. They automatically provide a filter sieving what is notable from what is not. The second point is important because primary sources often reflect research on the cutting edge, not necessarily considered established fact. It is easy to cherry pick such sources to push whatever POV one wants. Using secondary sources provides us one level of protection against this (the secondary-source publisher does the notability check, verification of primary facts, and verification of neutrality, at least in theory). See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I see several primary sources in the article. One way to get past the issue is to check which other articles cite the primary one, and see if any would qualify as a secondary source. Churn and change (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Churn - thank you for your comments - were there any Primary sources in particular that caught your eye? Fayedizard (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Autosomal trisomy in a chimpanzee: resemblance to Down's syndrome." Just one study from 1969, cited by three other articles in all these years. Primary source, being an original study on a chimpanzee. Not understandable to lay people with the abstract itself having words like "cytogenetic," "epicanthus," "hypotonia" and "acrocentric."
  • "Seizure frequency and characteristics in children with Down syndrome" Again a purely primary source reporting a new study in highly technical terms.
  • "Global up-regulation of chromosome 21 gene expression in the developing down syndrome brain"
  • "Down syndrome critical region around D21S55 on proximal 21q22.3" Even the title is unlikely to be comprehensible to the layperson. This is an original study. If the results have been replicated there should be secondary sources (reviews etc) mentioning it. If not, we shouldn't include it.
This is just a sample of what to look for. Also, the lead is a summary, and need not contain citations. For better reading flow, it should not contain citations. If when going through the lede, you find a citation can't be removed, it means you have something in the lead not explained in the body of the text. Churn and change (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful - I've made a bunch of changes based on your comments (I'm planning on pruning the lede of critations just as soon as we're sure we've got everything we want in there... I'm a little unsure at the moment - let me know if you have any more comments :) Fayedizard (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)