Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Down syndrome

Down syndrome

Partial self-nomination. This is an article we've worked on at the WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Medical Genetics, and the topic certainly merits a featured-standard article. It has had a peer review which can be read here which was extremely helpful and improved the article as a whole. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object:

~~"The incidence of Down syndrome is estimated at 1 per 800 to 1 per 1000 births." (no source)~~

<response>I don't like references in the introduction, although there is one at the end. If you look at Down syndrome#Epidemiology, you will find the proper sourcing for that range. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interesting part in the german article: Situation in different countries...

<response>I'll leave this comment for someone who reads German.Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is only one karyogram in the article while commons has 3: here!~~

<response>Two of the three in commons are essentially the same (one is the original, the other two are my revisions). Those two, and more, are found in Genetic origins of Down syndrome. There were simply too many for the general Down syndrome article.Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCurse _work 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Comments. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. :) I wait a week but I'm pretty sure, I'll support it! Good work! NCurse

_work 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - NCurse _work 07:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: with up to 50% of people with down syndrome having congenital heart defects, it would be nice to add something more about this, e.g.. which heart defects are most common (AVSD, VSD, ASD, persistent ductus arteriosus). --WS 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't notice the link to Health aspects of Down syndrome. support. --WS 17:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very comprehensive article. A few things (and others will creep up also): is there a source for Image:Maternal Age Effect.png? Is there a citation for the amniocentesis data? Some minor copyediting that I will work on also: "A danger in not mainstreaming is underestimating their abilities" sounds awkward, as do a few other lines. -- Samir धर्म 19:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have added more citations. Copyedit is, as always, an ongoing project. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions}

Comment, I have added two cite needed tags where I think things should be referenced. The table of genes on chromosome 21 could be shortened to those that are clearly related to neurogenesis or other downs symptoms, as is, it is a duplication of the info in the daughter article - and I don't think adds much. This section also seems like it could be merged into the genetics section - since it is about genetics. Why does the history of the disease stop at 1975?--Peta 03:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed one unreferenced line and added a reference to the other. I agree that the genetic research could be moved into the genetics section and the chart excised. I'll wait to hear from others. InvictaHOG 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table can certainly be cut back, although I expect it to grow in the future as more is known about the genes in that area. The organization of this article is somewhat problematic. A discussion of genes and their effects could be done in the genetics section. In the same way, a discussion of the health aspects and cognitive development could be covered in the section on characteristics. As we understand more about the genes underlying the various problems associated with Down syndrome, I can see the genetic research section becoming what is normally seen as treatment in medical articles. The way it was organized was to see the first genetics section as a "cause" and the genetic research more on specific effects. I see the article as moving from superficial (introduction) to general (characteristics, genetics, epidemiology, prenatal screening) to specific (cognitive development, health, genetic research). I see too many articles trying to explain everything at the same time. If I am alone in this, then that's OK as well. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt that there is a single DS gene, so the table could grow indefinately listing all the genes on the long arm of chromosome 21, it really is information overload given that there is a daughter article with all the same information.--Peta 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. As Research of Down syndrome-related genes expands it is always proper to ask how to best summarize the information. It may be we have too much material in the Down syndrome article. I'll look at ways to delete the table entirely, while summarizing the information. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the table, and changed the emphasis to research targets using transgenic mice. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Update)A small amount of the information from the original table is now incorporated into the text. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the characeristics and health sections would work better is they were merged into one section like Cystic fibrosis, which does a really good job of describing symptoms of the disorder initially so that it is cealr what the article is covering. Also while we are describing the characteristics of the disorder if would be useful for this to be followed by the effects on cognitive development before we get into discussion on genetics and prenatal screening.--Peta 23:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. How can you talk aobut differences between trisomy Down syndrome, mosaic Down syndrome, or translocation Down sydrome if you haven't talked about those already? The order has evolved over several months. While it can certainly evolve more, in my opinion, it works as is. Over the summer, I tried to fit the article into the mold of the Clinical Medicine Project's suggested article format. In the end, it just doesn't seem to work for Down syndrome. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got a bit lost with the incidence in the Epidemiology section , '1 per 800 to 1 per 1000 births.[11] In 2006, the Center for Disease Control estimated the rate as 1 per 733 live births in the United States (5429 new cases per year).[12]' would convert to per 100 i.e. '1-1.36 per 1000' rather than differnet amounts, possibly doing the same to risk paragraph following it. Other that - excellent
Support Leevanjackson 23:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]