Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tay-Sachs disease/archive1

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 not promoted by Karanacs 21:38, 30 May 2009 [1].

Tay-Sachs disease[edit]

Nominator(s): Metzenberg (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating Tay-Sachs disease for featured article because Tay-Sachs disease has been a public health model for disease prevention and the development of genetic counseling. Although TSD is a rare disorder, it is the classic textbook case in medical genetics. In society as a whole, it has become a model for understanding genetic variation in human populations. Metzenberg (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference check: Refs #22 (Closing the gap in Non-Ashkenazi Jewish Tay-Sachs detection) and #28 (Erasing Tay-Sachs Disease) are dead links. The former can probably just be delinked, but since the latter is a cite web I would suggest trying to find a reference to replace it. Article looks impressive on a skim, but I don't have the time to read it all. Wizardman 20:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I removed link 22, because it is general knowledge. As to the other link, the quote of Nomi Stone, the Neil Risch 2003 paper actually contains a complete description of Dor Yeshorim, and the Wikipedia article on Dor Yeshorim has several other references. So eveything is completely verifiable. But the Nomi Stone quotation has a great story to tell about Wikipedia, so I am hoping we can find it posted somewhere else, or perhaps Nomi Stone herself will do so for us. When I first put that quotation in, I assumed that Nomi Stone was the professor in the Dartmouth course, or perhaps that she was somebody who worked professionally in Jewish education or for Dartmouth Hillel. The article seemed well-written and accurate. When I went to look for the paper again, I discovered to my astonishment that Nomi Stone was actually a freshman at Dartmouth College when she wrote the paper. A quick resume for her ... she went on to graduate from Dartmouth in 2003, win a Fullbright, study at Oxford, live for three years with the Jews of Djerba, a traditional Jewish community on an island off Tunisia, become published as a poet, work as a journalist for the Middle East Institute, and ... now she is a graduate student in cultural anthropology at Columbia University.
So, I would say Nomi Stone is obviously a talented young woman whose quotation is valid and verifiable. If you were teaching a freshman course in Biology, wouldn't you like to tell your students that if they write a good paper, it might end up being quoted on Wikipedia alongside Neil Risch (well-known human geneticist and statistician) and Bruce Korf (well-known medical geneticist)? Metzenberg (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article that references dozens of scientific papers, and some have very complex source information that is hard to fit into the strictures of Template:Cite journal. For example, there are many papers with multiple authors and multiple editors, and with both an article title and a book title. Until Template:Cite journal can be improved to handle the nuances of such publications, it is better to keep what we've got. Sometimes a mixture of the two citation formats is needed, even though inconsistent, in order to give the best possible source information. Metzenberg (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just hunt for and find the problems that Sandy and others want found. And, yes, I did kinda notice that the article references a lot of scientic papers, since I read every single citation. I've pointed out the conflict, as Sandy's asked me to, that's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now eliminated all the Template:Citation cases. All references are now Template:Cite. Metzenberg (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is current ref 24 (Traubman...) a journal article? If so, the journal title needs to be italicised.
Haaretz is an Israeli English language newspaper, published in Tel Aviv. Note that there is a wikilink in the text so that you can figure out what Haaretz is. The issue is no longer available online from the Haaretz website. The presence of the wikilink in the text should serve to make it clear what this source is and how to find it (if necessary, in a library). I expect that with time, there will be new articles reporting newer public health statistics. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a newspaper, title should be italicised also. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is italicized.
It wasn't, but I fixed it for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Naomi Stone ref is still deadlinking. It needs a publisher also if it's kept
The publisher is Nomi Stone. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you've satisfied WP:SPS with the above about Naomi stone.
There are no real facts here under contention. The previous link to the article by Ekstein, J and Katzenstein, H (2001) completely covers the facts about this organization. There is a wikilink to Dor Yeshorim, and the same information about the organization is available there, with several magazine articles as sources. From the Dor Yeshorim page you can click through to the Dor Yeshorim website and verify it that way. This really doesn't need a citation. The only thing that has to be verified is that Nomi Stone said the words that she said. Metzenberg (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 39 (Kimura..) needs page numbers
The reference refers to a book, in its entirety, so no page numbers are necessary. The book is Kimura's basic statement of theory. It's like referring to Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. It is one of the most famous books in genetics of the entire 20th century. Indeed, I would call it general knowledge and say that no reference is really needed.
  • Current ref 43 (Gregory Cochran..) needs a publisher. What makes this a reliable source?
There is discussion of this in the Talk pages. It is a so-called scientific paper that has been covered in the New York Times, LA Times, and many other newspapers. It is newsworthy and is the subject of a huge amount of attention. The paper is published by Cambridge Journals, but costs $25.00 to read there without a library subscription, so it is preferable to give out a URL. The author is the publisher. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It originally appeared in a print journal? I'm confused here. If it's just a convience link, does this site have permission to republish the paper? We should give the original publication information, which will help establish reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the citation to cite their book, which has a chapter with substantially the same material. Metzenberg (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 53 (Lyman...) needs a page number
The Lyman reference is to an entire book. It is common for scientific books to be published with huge numbers of authors, and they are listed by the editor. They are collections of a large number of recent papers, often reprints. Often the articles they print have a large number of authors too. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, History does the same thing. When referring to papers from a conference/etc. it's usual to narrow it down to the chapter/article/paper, listing the actual author of the paper with information on the book it appeared in afterwards. Such as: Bates, David (1981). "The Origins of the Justiciarship". In R. Allen Brown (ed.). Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies IV. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press. pp. 1–12, 167–171. ISBN 0-85115-161-2. which lets the reader narrow down the actual reference used. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the citation with one from the same year in a medical practice publication for general physicians. Metzenberg (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 60 (Kaback... Tay-Sachs) needs a page number
The Kaback reference is likewise to an entire book. Same story. I put the reference into the inline format. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I've addressed all your concerns. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Here's an incomplete review; I haven't had time to carefully read each line, but have read enough that I have several concerns.
  • One of the first things a naive reader wants to know about a disease is, what are its symptoms? These are not described in the lead anywhere. Symptoms should be in the lead paragraph, preferably (briefly) in the lead sentence.
The lead does not have room for everything. The main symptom is death at an early age. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but death due to what? Inevitably ordinary readers will be curious. It's weird to have the lead for a disease give zero signs or symptoms for the disease. (I wouldn't count death as a sign, and by definition death cannot be a symptom....) Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More generally, the lead does not seem to summarize the body. I see large chunks of the body that are not at all mentioned in the lead. For example, there's a whole section on eugenics, but nothing about eugenics in the lead. (But see below; perhaps the lead is right and the body wrong here.)
I'm sorry, but the lead is limited to five paragraphs. My own feeling is that it presents the most important facts as it stands. Perhaps you would like to suggest topics that should be in the lead in the article's Talk section. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now I'd rather keep this discussion in one place; we can move the whole thing to the talk page if you like.
  • Eugenics is one such topic. More generally, any topic that is important enough to get a section header is a topic important enough to put into the lead. If this means that some stuff needs to be struck from the lead, so be it. Another example topic is polymorphisms. It should be a fairly mechanical procedure to run through the table of contents and check that everything in it is also in the lead.
  • WP:LEAD #Length suggests three or four paragraphs for an article this length. The current Tay-Sachs lead is five paragraphs, which is somewhat too long. Please look at the featured articles Acute myeloid leukemia and Autism for examples of good leads that are not as long.
Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section Controversy over heterozygote advantage is misplaced. It has nothing to do with epidemiology, and shouldn't be in the Epidemiology section. Since this controversy is historical and is no longer active, the logical place for this section is under History.
The controversy is about the epidemiology of the disease (why carrier status is widespread in certain populations). The controversy is not historical. Rather, at a time when researchers in medical genetics have largely come to agreement on the subject, there is still a lot of popular science discussion of it. Indeed, the subject was discussed in a wire service article by Karne Kaplan in newspapers all over the United States during April. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "controversy is not historical" comment seems to contradict a comment you made a few days ago in the peer review that "this is really a historic controversy, not a modern one". Perhaps you could explain the seeming contradiction? At any rate, the historical component of this controversy (whatever that is) should be moved to the history section. For the purpose of Epidemiology, it doesn't matter what unreliable sources say on the subject; only reliable sources should matter.
  • By and large an Epidemiology section should not be not about why (that's for a Causes/Etiology/Genetics section); it should be about what. For example, it's fine for an epidemiology section to talk about risk factors, but it's not fine for it to introduce genetics topics and discuss them extensively.
Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 45% of the body of the article (counting the above) is about history. This seems too much, and raises WP:WEIGHT issues, particularly since very little of the lead is about history. To restore the proper weight it would make sense to create a subarticle, History of Tay-Sachs disease, to create much of this material, and summarizing it here.
I think that breaking up the article is needlessly breaking up a body of information that needs to stand together. Note that Tay-Sachs disease is one of the very few genetic diseases that is widely discussed in society in general, and that it is a textbook case as well ... it is in a lot of genetics and public health textbooks as a model disease. It's important that we keep this information together. Metzenberg (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, I struck the comment. The article is not too long, so it can be kept together. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead paragraph is too hard to read. Too many technical words are shoehorned into the first few sentences, and it needs to be lightened up. Some specific suggestions:
  • Move the aliases "(abbreviated TSD, also known as GM2 gangliosidosis, Hexosaminidase A deficiency or Sphingolipidosis)" to a later paragraph, or into the infobox.
  • Don't use the following jargon in the lead, at least not without defining the terms, as ordinary readers can't be expected to know it offhand: "autosomal recessive", "fatty acid derivative", "lipids".
We have wikilinks for this purpose. This article is likely to be used at the college level. It is an article about a technical subject, and the use of such terms is necessary. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really a less technical term for "lipids" that is entirely accurate. You could say that lipids are fats, which they sort of are, but that would cause the whole thing to be completely misunderstood. Actually, fats are lipids. It's better to use the right term and then a wikilink. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the sentence that contains autosomal recessive. Please not that all Wikipedia articles for diseases that are autosomal recessive must of necessity use this nomenclature, and that most others do so in the lead. Metzenberg (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the change: it improved things greatly, as it explains to a naive reader what an autosomal recessive pattern is. (A nit: MOS:EMDASH says there should not be spaces around that em dash.)
  • I see that "fatty acid derivative" is fixed too.
  • "Lipid" is still a problem, though: naive readers can't be expected to know what a lipid is, and the wikilink isn't enough here. The current wording "lipids, components of cellular membranes," is especially confusing, as it can easily be misinterpreted to define "lipids" to mean "components of cellular membranes". One possibility is simply to remove "lipids," from the lead, since it's not really needed there.
  • In rereading the lead carefully I found another word that a naive reader can't be expected to know: "autosomal". This word should be defined in the lead, or the containing phrases should be reworded to avoid the word.
  • The lead sentence is still weak, I'm afraid. The only useful information it gives to a naive reader is that TSD is genetic and its most common variant is fatal. Surely we can do better than that. How about this instead?
"Tay-Sachs disease is a genetic disorder in which an enzyme that breaks down brain-cell waste products malfunctions, causing the brain to deteriorate, almost always resulting in death by age five." (*)
This is obviously not perfect, but I hope you get the idea: it's a simple declarative sentence, using words the general reader will understand, that defines the term Tay-Sachs disease. And it gives a whole lot more useful information than the existing lead.
Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are gangliosides "fatty acid derivatives" or "lipids"? the lead says both, without explaining the discrepancy.
Lipids are composed primarily of fatty acids. Fatty acids are a molecular subunit of lipids. Again, wikilinking is critical to a technical article. For those who are not familiar with biochemistry and want more precise information, wikilinks serve the purpose. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that this does not answer my question. Anyway the text should be accurate as it stands, and since lipids are not the same thing as fatty acid derivatives, something needs to be reworded. The lead no longer says that gangliosides are fatty acids, but the body still does, so there's still a terminology problem. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GM2 gangliosidoses are the same disease clinically, but the three sub-types (of which TSD is the most famous) can be distinguished by enzyme assay and mutation analysis. The three diseases are identical clinically, and can only be distinguished molecularly. The other two diseases are extrmely rare. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in that case, the lead sentence is incorrect and should be fixed. Tay-Sachs is not "also known as GM2 gangliosidosis"; it is one of the three GM2 gangliosidoses. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead fails to mention the following crucial points:
  • The role of beta-hexosaminidase A.
And you want an easier, less technical lead??? If you read the article below, you will find that the exact molecular role of beta-hexosaminidase A is not even known. It is currently theorized that it is involved in transport of gangliosides across the lysosomal membrane. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is known can be summarized without a lot of jargon. The role of the enzyme is crucial to understanding the disease. I really don't see how it can be kept out of the lead. In my draft, marked (*) above, it is even mentioned in the lead sentence, which is appropriate. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of multiple forms of the disease.
The variant forms, to give some perspective, are so rare that only a few dozen cases are reported worldwide each year. Juvenile TSD in particular is extremely rare. To have a manageable and readable article, we have to have some subordination, putting the most important points in the lead and only the most important points. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead doesn't have to mention each variant in detail, but it should mention that there are variants. Now that I've reread the lead, it already does that, so I've struck that. Sorry about the false alarm. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words "blood test".
I think the article explains that blood tests are not the only kind of test. So let's not have a lead that is misleading. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then "blood or tissue test". The point is that the naive reader should have a clue about what's needed for a test. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy in the lead: "genetic mutation on the HEXA gene".
Please explain how you think this is a redundancy. I think the wording is necessary to be clear, especially for the non-technical reader. Metzenberg (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word "genetic" is redundant with "gene". I suggest removing "genetic". Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "mass screening" need not be quoted.
I will remove the quote. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want no technical terms in the lead, yet you want all of this? I'm sorry, but there is a redactive process in creating a lead and you have to decide that some things belong and some things don't. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "all of this" refers to, but yes, the topic of a blood test (or whatever the test is, if it's not a blood test) is key to the ordinary reader's understanding of Tay-Sachs. Using that phrase would shorten the lead, since we could replace "enzyme assay test" with "blood test". The fact that the test is an enzyme assay is not crucial to the lead (as it doesn't help the general reader's understanding), and can easily be redacted from the lead. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't mention dementia or an increased startle reflex to noise, both common symptoms of infantile TSD.
Dementia is really a symptom of LOTS, not infantile TSD. Startle reflex is not a symptom to my knowledge. Metzenberg (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My source for dementia and startle reflex is the short definition of TSD in the NINDS summary. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification (this one is most important)
Sorry, but I don't follow you. Why don't you make a case for this on the article's Talk page. WP:MEDMOS is just a general guideline, and I feel that the sections in this article are what best fits the information. If you feel otherwise, make some constructive suggestions in the article's TALK section. Please give some better justification, however, than "that's what it says in WP:MEDMOS", because diseases are very diverse, and each one requires a somewhat different treatment.
The reason for Classification is to put the disease in context with similar diseases, and to distinguish it from similar diseases (e.g., other lysosomal storage disorders); if the disease has variants (as is the case here) it also distinguishes the variants. This is the "big picture" of where the disease fits into the universe of medicine. (As before, I'd like to keep this discussion in one spot.) Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research directions (see Desnick & Kabak 2001, listed below)
The section now called "Prognosis and therapy" really covers this. Prognosis and therapy is a better name for this material. May I ask, have you read Desnick and Kaback, and do you see some material in that article that is not covered here? Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section now called Prognosis and therapy covers research directions well. However, I disagree that Prognosis and therapy is a good name for the current contents of that section. Currently that section, by my word count, is 2% about prognosis, 6% about management, and 92% about research directions. It would be better to rename the section "Resesarch directions". Ideally, more material could be found on prognosis and management, and new sections Prognosis and Management could be created as per WP:MEDMOS#Diseases/disorders/syndromes. If there's not enough prognosis and management material, perhaps a single section Prognosis and management section should be created again. Currently, the article has almost no material on prognosis or management, which is a real deficiency. (And to answer your other question, no, I have not read those sources.) Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sections need renaming or other reorganization:
  • Symptoms should be Signs and symptoms (or Characteristics)
Signs and symptoms is OK with me. I will change it. Metzenberg (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etiology and pathophysiology should be broken up into an etiology section and a pathophysiology section. In a general-purpose encyclopedia it's better to use the easy-to-understand names Causes and Mechanism for these two sections. Or perhaps Genetics rather than Causes.
Etiology and pathophysiology are established medical terms. Etiology is a difficult word, I admit, but it means much more than causes. I think breaking this into two sections would be a poor organization for the article as a whole. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it'd hurt the organization. The existing front matter (2 paragraphs) of Etiology and pathophysiology section would become the new Mechanism (or Pathophysiology) section. The existing Mutations and polymorphism subsection would become the new Genetics (or Causes) section. This is a simple edit of two lines in the source; it would not affect the overflow flow of the article.
  • It's true that "etiology" is an established term, but in this case the etiology is all about genetics, and since WP:MEDMOS#Diseases/disorders/syndromes suggests a section header named Genetics (or Causes) then it makes sense for Tay-Sachs to use one of these words, both easily recognizable to a naive reader, instead of the more-difficult word. I won't insist on renaming Pathophysiology to Mechanism (even though that's a good idea too, as the article should avoid jargon if possible; but this is a closer call).
Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Testing and prevention should be broken into two sections Diagnosis and Prevention
That wouldn't work logically, because the discussion of the two testing modalities, enzyme assay and molecular analysis, has to be interwoven with the two. The article would be less easy to understand. Let's keep it the way it is. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it should be Screening and Diagnosis as per WP:MEDMOS; sorry about that. As I understand it, for genetic disorders Screening is preferred to Prevention. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prognosis and therapy should be broken into two sections Management (or Treatment) and Prognosis.
I don't agree. Perhaps you would like to take this up on the article's Talk page if it is important to you, so that people who are more familiar with TSD than you are have a chance to weigh in. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's keep the discussion in one place. At any rate the word therapy is not that accurate in the title; Management would be more accurate, regardless of whether the section is split. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical and social significance should be broken into two sections History and Society and culture.
Make a case for this on the article's Talk page if you wish. Metzenberg (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd prefer to keep this discussion in one spot, either here, or move this whole thing there. The argument for splitting is simple: about 40 to 50% of the article is in this section, and it should be split into two pieces. Also, WP:MEDMOS suggests splitting it. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some topics that should be covered in the body:
  • Repeated infection, the usual cause of death.
  • The use of anticonvulsants to treat seizures associated with TSD
  • Nutrition/hydration/feeding tubes
  • Keeping the breathing airway open
  • The destructive mechanism of TSD begins in the fetus, early in pregnancy.
Specific care of the TSD infant is a better subject of medical practice manuals, and this would be too much detail for this article. Since fewer than 100 babies a year are actually born with TSD worldwide, such material is of too narrow a scope for Wikipedia. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid not. Care is a major topic for any disease, independently of how rare it is, and there are good reasons WP:MEDMOS suggests that incurable diseases be given an entire Management section. I don't see why Tay-Sachs would be an exception.
  • By the way, that "fewer than 100 babies" figure should be in the article: one of the first questions one asks in epidemiology is "what's the prevalence?". Also, the "fewer than 100 babies" figure doesn't match my calculations, which would put the incidence over 500 live births per year worldwide. My source is Meikle et al. 1999 along with the obvious arithmetic.
Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other high-risk populations: Pennsylvania Dutch; and maybe British and Italian?
The three high-risk populations listed have carrier rates around 1 in 30. These others have lower carrier rates. You have to draw a line somewhere. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, I struck the mention of specific populations. But that 1-in-30 statistic is important and worth mentioning in the article. The article should also mention that the list of ethnic groups is not exclusive, and there are other well-defined higher-risk populations. (Morrocan Jews are 1 in 45, for example, though you need not cite this example in particular of course.) Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the images are generic (i.e., are not about TSD) and are not helpful here. They seem to be present in order to decorate the article; but it's better to omit decorations like that, and to keep images only if they actually illustrate the article. Questionable images include:
Couples who conceive a child and are at risk for Tay-Sachs need to know what their options are. The fact that abortion presents a problem for many is clearly stated in the article, in neutral language. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The language may be neutral, but the image is obviously not neutral. The article should not present POV, as per Wikipedia policy; see WP:NPOV. The image is clearly presenting editorial POV and as such is completely out of place in this article. It must be removed. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irving Berlin is an example of a famous Jewish immigrant, and the text right next to the image explains how some critics of immigration in the early 20th century used TSD as an example of why Jews were not fit for immigration into the United States. This sentiment peaked right around the time of World War I, which is ironically, exactly when Irving Berlin wrote thee patriotic standard God Bless America. Do you believe that encyclopedia articles should be narrow lists of facts, that any synthesis of factual information is impossible? I'm not interested in working on such an encyclopedia myself. Metzenberg (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judgment calls are inevitable in areas like this, but this particular case the judgment is extremely suspect. Tay-Sachs is not supposed to be a collection of trivia that is vaguely related to Tay-Sachs through multiple levels of indirection. Let's put it this way: we have no reliable sources linking Berlin directly to Tay-Sachs. We therefore cannot make that connection in this article, as it would be a clear case of original research. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All four images after Irving Berlin's.
  • To summarize: most of the images in the article seem to be decorations, and are not directly relevant to the article's topic, so they should be removed. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Additional images section should be removed. The image is useless in its reduced size. Perhaps if it were full size and explained; but in that case it should be in Mechanism.
I have no problem with removing that additional image. It was somebody's well-meaning attempt to produce an image. I just removed it. Metzenberg (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody would want to read an encyclopedia article like this without images. I would welcome your efforts to seek out additional images. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References do not use a consistent style. Many of them put a comma between the author's last name and initials, for example. Or they use the full date rather than the year. Or they don't abbreviate the journal title using the PubMed abbreviation. Or they put periods after the abbreviation. Or they omit the journal's issue, or the PubMed ID, or the DOI, or the top page. Please sweep through the refs and make sure they all use the same style. I suggest the style used in the next bullet below, which is generated by Dave's Template Filler, except with periods removed from journal abbreviations and month names removed from dates; but whichever style you use, please be consistent.
The references are diverse with many being scientific journals. Different sources vary in whether they give an exact date of publication. For example, PMID only started in the 1980s, and some sources are from earlier. We have to be content with the fact that different levels of information are available about different articles. Also, book references need to use a different naming style, in order that the book can be located at a website like Amazon, whereas PMID reference have long lists of authors and can be located by a database number. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PMID should be used when available. Likewise for DOI. Books should use {{cite book}}. But I'm afraid my main points weren't addressed (abbreviation styles, for example). Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following high-quality references on Tay-Sachs are not cited. As per WP:MEDRS, reviews like these should be cited in preference to primary sources. Wailoo & Pemberton is well reviewed.
  • Fernandes Filho JA, Shapiro BE (2004). "Tay-Sachs disease". Arch Neurol. 61 (9): 1466–8. doi:10.1001/archneur.61.9.1466. PMID 15364698.
  • Sutton VR (2002). "Tay-Sachs disease screening and counseling families at risk for metabolic disease". Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 29 (2): 287–96. PMID 12108829.
  • Desnick RJ, Kaback MM (2001). "Future perspectives for Tay-Sachs disease". Adv Genet. 44: 349–56. PMID 11596996.
  • Hansis C, Grifo J (2001). "Tay-Sachs disease and preimplantation genetic diagnosis". Adv Genet. 44: 311–5. PMID 11596992.
  • Risch N (2001). "Molecular epidemiology of Tay-Sachs disease". Adv Genet. 44: 233–52. PMID 11596986.
  • Wailoo K, Pemberton SG (2006). "Eradicating a 'Jewish gene': promises and pitfalls in the fight against Tay-Sachs disease". The Troubled Dream of Genetic Medicine: Ethnicity and Innovation in Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, and Sickle Cell Disease. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 14–60. ISBN 0-8018-8325-3.
More that 160 articles about Tay-Sachs disease are mentioned just in the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man database. We can't possibly cite them all. Some of these articles would duplicate others that are cited, by the same authors. For example, the Risch article is an earlier version of his 2003 article, which is cited very heavily in the paper. I've cited the ones that are important to giving an understanding of TSD for the general public. If you have a specific reason why one of these articles really belongs, and you have read the article, then perhaps you can bring that up on the talk page and explain why the article is important and offers something that the current article does not.Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I listed those articles because they are high-quality reviews, and as per WP:MEDRS reviews should be preferred when available. If we have 160 primary sources and 4 reviews, then those 4 reviews should be on the short list of what gets cited. This principle applies regardless of whether I've read the reviews. A Wikipedia article that cites primary sources but not reviews, even though reviews are available, is on thin ice. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wailoo & Pemberton (2006) in particular is not really a book about Tay-Sach disease. Rather, it is a book about how the relatively successful model for eradicating Tay-Sachs disease within one target population has failed to work with cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. It's an excellent book for those two other diseases, and would recommend it for inclusion those articles, but I think that it is beyond the scope of this article, which is only about Tay-Sachs disease. Metzenberg (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute: the article currently claims that Tay-Sachs "became a research and public health model for understanding and preventing all autosomal genetic disorders". The article emphasizes this topic heavily by spending an entire paragraph on the lead on it, giving sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis as examples. But Wailoo & Pemberton is an important source saying no, TSD isn't a successful model. With all this in mind, how can the book not be directly relevant to Tay-Sachs? Isn't it a POV violation for Tay-Sachs to omit this important (albeit somewhat negative) mainstream viewpoint that undercuts a major argument presented in the Tay-Sachs article? Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whew! That's enough of a review for starters. Hope this helps, but I'm afraid a considerable amount of work will be needed to bring this article up to FA quality. Maybe it'd be better to shoot for GA first? Eubulides (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wrt Eubulides on the lead containing jargon, and Metzenberg's response, please see WP:NOT PAPERS, which is policy. Colin°Talk 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have simplified slightly the language in the lead. Metzenberg (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eubulides. I'm not even going to read this page again. I am asking that this article be withdrawn as a featured article candidate, and I am not going to participate in the Featured article candidate process on Wikipedia again. If you wish for me to continue working on the article, please do not respond on my Talk page. I hope you understand that there are very few editors working on Wikipedia science articles, and those of us who do, do so in good faith. We would rather spend our time working on articles than providing some kind of entertainment or therapy. Metzenberg (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tay-Sachs_disease/archive1&oldid=293419001"