Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Autism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Autism[edit]

previous FAC
FARC former featured article, been on main page

Self-nomination. This former Featured Article was demoted on 2006-12-17 due to many {{fact}} tags, weasel words, undercitation, and lack of conformance to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Since then it has been heavily rewritten to fix the above-mentioned problems, with the goal of making it the best encyclopedia-style reference for autism available anywhere. It went through a peer review, reached Good Article status, and is this week's selected article on the Medicine Portal. The article is 72 kB in total size, with 38 kB of readable text. Eubulides 16:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Bisognerebbe inxseriscing + images --A cool night green owl 16:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - though I think lead is too long and intro of the "Classification" section could use some citations, it doesn't prevent me from supporting. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks; I trimmed the lead a bit (further suggestions welcome) and added cites to Classification's intro. Eubulides 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your response on my talk page. Now I think lead should be acceptable, though four paras are, in my opinion, bit much, though I won't oppose promotion because of this (my ideal would be three). For citations, good job for adding them. Now I was looking again through the article and I think at least one citation would be good for these: intro of the Characteristics section, for Diagnosis intro before last two sentences and maybe intro of Treatment section. And yes, I don't know what this should mean "Removed from the following pages" (though it's year old message) on the image page of Leo Kanner (ignore if it is irrevelant or solved). Otherwise, excellent article. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, thanks, I added citations for all the sections you mentioned except for Diagnosis where the first sentence introduces DSM-IV-TR 299.00, then all but one of the sentences summarize DSM-IV-TR 299.0 without any analysis, and the last of these sentences cites DSM-IV-TR 299.0. That should be enough, right? Hope we don't have to put a "[1]" after each sentence. I'll think about shortening the lead further (got any suggestions?). Eubulides 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • All right, I accept your explanation of Diagnosis, I guess we don't need [1] or similar in the lower parts. For the lead, I haven't said that I wish to cut it more (though it is 38kb of prose, so four paragraphs should be okay). Other than that, I don't have anything to point out (maybe prose but as a non-native speaker I can't assess it well), so I'm definitely supporting promotion. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I shortened the lead a bit as follows; this brings it down to 3 paragraphs as requested. Eubulides 08:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, now it looks better. MarkBA t/c/@ 08:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These minor fixes needed:
  • These shouldn't be hyphenated: "narrowly-focused interests", "publicly-supported programs" and "widely-cited 2002 pilot study"
  • "might consider several other possibilities, including ADHD." – the "several" is redundant
  • "Several other drugs are prescribed off-label," – the "several" is redundant. Epbr123 13:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I made the above fixes. Eubulides 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very good effort on a very difficult topic. Many articles in this area on Wikipedia are very biased, and to have this "main article" in a well-referenced NPOV state should hopefully penetrate the related content as well. JFW | T@lk 10:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article provides a comprehensive and detailed introduction to a hugely important topic in medicine. Such a controversial subject demands the highest quality sources, which I'm happy to say this article relies on. The editors have taken care to ensure the wording accurately reflects those sources. NPOV is extremely difficult to achieve here, but I'd say the article reflects the current consensus fairly. I'd love to see the daughter articles improved too! Well done. Note: perhaps a WP graphics designer could be persuaded to turn the AutismBrain image into SVG and consider using it in the article in a way that is readable without clicking on the image. Colin°Talk 14:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is very extensive and comprehensive and I am impressed that such a controversial and widely debated subject matter is presented so fairly. Really pleasing to see such a core topic at such a high standard :) Image:Autistic-sweetiepie-boy-with-ducksinarow.jpg is very cute too, which I'm sure is an unwritten FA criteria. Kamryn · Talk 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Colin. I was originally brought to this article through the Lily Montgomery article, then I was brought to this article again through the Jonathan Lavery article. And each time I was brought to this article, I have been intrigued by it, and it's everything that Colin has explained above. Very well-written, fantastic article. Great job on it. Flyer22 18:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -Fixes needed - looks promising but the prose is jarring in places and needs alot of tweaking (examples to follow). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heritability contributes about 90% of the risk of a child developing autism, but the genetics of autism are complex and typically it is unclear which genes are responsible - sentence is clunky - lose the "typically" as it is a redundant word. Might flow better replacing "but" with "though" or a semicoln and "however"
Fair enough, how about "in most cases" or "generally" - the "typically" feels clunky...
I changed it to "generally". Eubulides 06:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..actually could lose the 2nd "of autism" in the sentence above as it is obvious which genetics is referring to.
  • Changing "[[Heritability of autism|genetics of autism]]" to "[[Heritability of autism|genetics]]" would make for a confusing wikilink, as a reader normally would think that "genetics" would wikilink to Genetics. Instead of losing the 2nd "of autism" I replaced the first "autism" with "disorder". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversy of increasing diagnosis needs to be mentioned in lead. An easy 1-2 sentences to pop in.
  • I modified the lead to mention that controversy. The lead's a tad large, though (a reviewer has already commented on this), so I did it in less than 1 or 2 sentences. The paragraph wikilinks "controversy" to Controversies in autism so the casual reader can easily find out more about the controversy. Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its impairments result from maturation-related changes... - lose the its - again self-explanatory.
  • Of the other four ASD forms, Asperger syndrome is closest to autism - replace the odd-sounding "forms" with "conditions" or "syndromes" or "diagnoses". Also "closest" here needs qualification - what? why?
  • I replaced "ASD forms" with "autism spectrum disorders", and "closest to autism" to "closest to autism in signs and likely causes". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • share several symptoms with autism - replace "symptoms" with "characteristics" or "features" - a symptom is what a patient describes.
  • more-specific (?) - this does not need a hyphen
  • The main difference between autism and Asperger syndrome is that in Asperger's there is no significant delay... - this needs to be rewritten to lose the repetition. How about "Aspergers syndrome is distinguished by the absence of delay...." or something
  • I changed "The main difference between autism and Asperger syndrome is that in Asperger's there is no significant delay…" to "Unlike autism, Asperger's has no significant delay…". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text seems to waver between Asperger and Asperger's - consistency please.
  • I changed it to use "Asperger's" consistently. Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Autism covers a wide range, - odd clause which needs a rewrite. "There is a great degree of variation in the condition's severity.." is better. Sounds colloquial and odd as is.
  • I changed it to "Autism's manifestations cover a wide spectrum". This matches the cited source more closely. Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last para of Social development flips into talking about ASD. This does not gel with the article unless integrated properly.
  • "Does not gel" is a bit vague; can you please be more specific? Here's some background to help you think about it. The cited sources sometimes talk about ASD, and sometimes talk about autism. When we found a reliable source that talked about autism, that source was preferred; the article falls back on ASD sources otherwise. Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - tricky I know. Let me dwell upon it....
  • Atypical eating occurs in about three fourths of children with ASD, so frequently that it used to be a diagnostic indicator. - needs rewriting - replace the jargonistic "Atypical eating" with "Eating problems" or "Problem eating" or something, "it used to be" sounds colloquial - try "was previously considered"
  • "Problems" wouldn't be right, as atypical eating is not always problematic. I changed "Atypical eating" to "Atypical eating behavior"; hope that suffices. I also changed "it used to be" with "it was formerly". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • its theory of causation is still incomplete. - ummm....How about "cause is unknown" or "little known"?
  • That phrase wikilinks to Etiology, i.e., to the theory of causation. Rewording to "cause is unknown" would mean the wikilink would be inaccurate. Also, the sentence is really more about the theory of causation for autism, not just the causes of autism. Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tracking down the causes is often hard, - colloquial. need to change to "Identifying...difficult"
  • I changed "Tracking down" to "Finding". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • .., and some researchers argue - change to semicolon or stop and lose the "and"
  • First, for each autistic individual, mutations in more than one gene may be implicated. Second, mutations in different sets of genes may be involved in different autistic individuals. Third, there may be significant interactions among mutations in several genes or between the environment and mutated genes. -I'd lose the ordinal numbers here. They add nothing and make the text look odd.
  • Neither category is satisfactory on its own. Social cognition.. - I'd go with a semicolon here as the sentence is too short otherwise.
  • Somewhere in treatment it is critical to point out that the goal of treatment is management and improvement of symptoms and functioning rather than cure. This is hinted at but not really spelt out anywhere.
  • I inserted a new 1st sentence "The goal of treatment is to manage and improve symptoms and functioning." "Prognosis" starts with "No cure is known" so I hope that depressing information need not be repeated under "Treatment". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few examples of autism and its treatment can be found from long before it was named. - umm...sounds colloquial. Try "Examples of conditions likely to have been about autism and its treatment occur in literature long before it was described" or something like it.
  • I changed it to "A few examples of autistic symptoms and treatments were described long before autism was named." Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally - the corresponding History section in schizophrenia and Asperger syndrome is the section right after the lead. Kanner is pretty important and I'd move the section to there as well but put the first para about references predating official description at the end of the section.
  • WP:MEDMOS lists "History" last, and my impression is that "History" appears last in more featured medical articles than where it appears first. Examples of where "History" appears last include Tourette syndrome, Cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, Multiple sclerosis, and Coeliac disease. Kanner is indeed important and "History" does say that his description of autism remains the classic one. The photograph of Kanner in "History" helps to highlight his importance to guide the reader to this important part of the section. As a general rule, it's better to use chronological order in brief histories in encyclopedias: that's simpler and less confusing to the reader. This may help to explain why the earlier accounts are put first in "History". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! - point conceded (shuffles feet and looks at the ground)...guess I'd better go and look at what I can do at schizophrenia then....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)
Sorry about the oppose but the article's prose really really needs fixing. It is doable and I'll happily support once fixes done. More coming though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your comments have been helpful and I'm looking forward to fixing any remaining problems. Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, the placement of the History section has been discussed for years at WP:MEDMOS, with consensus being it usually should be last. However, order of sections is only a suggestion, so I won't object to History being first, even though I don't like it (and I don't agree with it being first at either AS or Schizophrenia). Tourette syndrome follows MEDMOS and has History last, mentioning the most salient facts in the lead. I wouldn't object over order of sections, but I don't like the idea of History first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to Weak Support - i.e. I think we're over the line but the prose could still do some tweaking. If you want I can edit with detailed summaries and show you. Incidentally thanks for hte input on schizophrenia..have to pay more attention to MEDMOS...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, any further suggestions for wording improvements would be helpful. I claim no particular expertise at prose style, and anyway I have spent so much time editing the article that I can't see its stylistic faults so easily. Others have improved Autism's style this way recently, e.g., User:TimVickers. Eubulides 06:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article has been converted by Eubulides from the poorly sourced, speculative, rambling, uncomprehensive, POV article that was FARCd in December 2006 to a comprehensive, NPOV article relying on the highest quality sources. With the sustained attention of many editors who watch the article now, I'm confident the prose, sourcing, and NPOV will be maintained. Disclaimer: I figure in the article stats as one of the top five contributors. My contributions were mostly before Eubulides began to work, and are largely vandal reverts and ref cleanups (working by sections to fix references chunks up a high edit count). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Can someone fix the closing page ranges in the references? MOS says they're normally abbreviated to two digits, and never to one or three digits. Tony 14:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Autism&oldid=1078786210"