Talk:Friedreich's ataxia/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 07:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akrasia25, I'll take on this review. Give me a few days to find some time. Apologies for the very long wait in the GAN queue. I'm looking forward to the read! Ajpolino (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've begun. I'll mostly review the criteria in the order they're listed below. Feel free to address things as I go or to wait for me to finish. Let me know if you have questions/concerns or wish to discuss anything further. Ajpolino (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long. Feel free to work on things in any order, and let me know if I can help or clarify anything. I've marked the review as "on-hold" so the folks who watch the GAN queue know I haven't forgotten you. The review can stay open as long as you'd like, but if you feel you'll need more than a month or two to address these comments (or if you feel I've given an unfair or otherwise idiotic review), then we typically mark the review as "failed" and you can re-nominate anytime. Just let me know. That said, I hope all is well on your end! Thanks for the interesting read. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the review Ajpolino. Really good comments that I will use for future articles too. I am on these changes now.--Akrasia25 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

In general, we try to avoid using "patient" to refer to people with a disease in Wikipedia articles. Remember that the article will be read by a broad audience, not just physicians and medical students, but also people with the disease, and their family, friends, and coworkers. More guidance on the topic is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Writing_for_the_wrong_audience. Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signs & symptoms - prose isn't always superior to a bulleted list, but in this case I think the section would be greatly improved by turning your bulleted list into paragraphy-style text and adding some context. Are these signs & symptoms common or rare? Early presentations or late? Does "vision impairment" mean their vision blurs, or they go completely blind? Et al. Also a paragraph-style presentation would force some kind of order into the list, which currently appears to be in a somewhat random order. Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Management - We typically avoid recommendations in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia is not a clinical guideline (WP:NOTGUIDE), it's an encyclopedia. Recommendations (e.g. "strengthening exercises should be incorporated...") should be rephrased to state a fact. Depending on the sources, something like "treatment typically includes X...", "X is effective for improving Y", or "The Australian Society of Ataxiacs recommends X" are all common here. For folks used to writing in a clinical style, this can be hard to get used to. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'm more than happy to do so. Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Management - Similar with "speech therapy is recommended"... by whom? You cite a Cochrane review here so perhaps this could be explained in more precise terms, e.g. "Speech therapy improves X". Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology - A slight reorganization might help this section flow better. The first sentence and the fourth paragraph are both on the topic of populations susceptible to FDRA, so maybe they could be brought together? The three single-sentence paragraphs on prevalence estimates could then be brought together into one paragraph? Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Research - I like that this article has so much information on the pharmaceutical pipeline for this drug. That's a topic that's often poorly covered in our medicine article. That said, I think the detail could be trimmed slightly to make the section more readable. Also/alternatively the organization of the section could be improved. Now it's a bit of an odd mix. Some of the section headings are the mechanism of action of the product (e.g. "Modulation of transcriptional factor Nrf2"), others are the nature of the product ("Flavonoids" and "Gene therapy"). Perhaps you should decide if you'd like to organize this section by mechanism or by type of product. Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor stuff

Genetics - I assume "Intron" is supposed to be lowercase? Would've changed it myself, but not sure if there's a capitalization convention in genetics I'm not aware of. Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics - The last paragraph can be appended to the one above it. They're on the same basic topic. Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section):

b (citations to reliable sources):

c (OR):

d (copyvio and plagiarism):

There are a few places where I can't tell what references support some content, particularly the bulleted lists in Signs & symptoms and Diagnosis. Also the first sentence in Epidemiology. Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fill out some more information for the URL-only references? It helps protect against WP:LINKROT. The ones I see are titled "RTA 408 capsules in patients...", "Part 2 of the Phase II MOXIe...", "Safety and efficacy of EPI-743...", "Bioelectron pipeline", "Epicatechin to Treat...", "STATegics, Inc. Announces...", "FARA - Rare Disease Day 2017 -...", "BioMarin Highlights...", and "Jupiter Orphan..." Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, we strive to use recent, authoritative, secondary sources in medicine articles, as these are the most reliable indicators of the up-to-date mainstream thinking on topics (the community's thinking on what constitutes reliable sources in medicine is summarized at WP:MEDRS). Some of the medical information here is cited to reviews that are 10+ years old. That's certainly not the end of the world, but anywhere that you can replace an older reference with a newer one (where the newer one contains the same information, of course), you'll increase the reader's faith that our article is reliable and up-to-date. Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Particular source issues to check:

About 20% of people have trouble metabolizing carbohydrates and 10% develop diabetes mellitus is referenced to this 1962 review. Is there more recent coverage of the topic? Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the first paragraph of the Pathophysiology section references a 20-year old review. Anything more recent that can take its place? Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects):

b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Pass. Not required for this review, but consider adding alternative text to the images. It allows visually impaired folks using screen readers to get a sense of what the image is conveying.

Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:

Pass/Fail: