Jump to content

Talk:Trisomy X

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 17:22, 5 July 2021 (→"Female/girl/woman" wording: Replying to Vaticidalprophet (using reply-link)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Copyedit

This article lacks a flow when reading. Many sentences are too short and could be combined. For example, two sentences in the second line of the article could be combined to read "Those affected by Triple X Syndrome are often taller than average, but there are typically no other physical abnormalities." There are a few missing commas throughout the article. A sentence under "Psychological" should read "On average, those affected have IQs that are 20 points lower than normal." Ddesalvo2016 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Drew DeSalvo[reply]

The

The claim about XXX genotypes being 'gifted in empathy' etc is far too vague to be useful without very specific citations. Not only is the term "empathy" itself ill-defined, this kind of generalizaton would be very difficult to support (how does one design an experiment to verify empathic ability?). I don't want to delete it out-of-hand, but someone more familiar with this should check it out. (unsigned comment -- 18 November 2005 216.39.182.234)

  • generally, xxx has an adventage having an extra set However,whoop said the martian it not always, as an xxx, there is no really large unfair advantage or gifted shown has been noted. back to the point, this seems to be more of bias in point of view rather than poor support GSPbeetle 06:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actual name

Is there an actual name for this disorder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.1 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary?

The article states Triple X syndrome is not inherited, but usually occurs as a random event during the formation of reproductive cells (ovum and sperm). but what of women with triple X syndrome? How does meiosis work? It would seem to me that half their ova would have XX (since the diploid cells with XXX would have to divide those as XX and X), and thus, they'd have a 50% chance of having either a triple X daughter or a son with Kleinfelter's Syndrome. Is there some process preventing this? Nik42 (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm guessing that they're rendered infertile 96.247.124.209 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would like to point out that the page you reference says "Links NORMALLY to be Avoided," thus implying that special circumstances can warrant their inclusion.

I submit that the links in question are subject to those special circumstances, for many reasons.

First of all, as you may or may not be aware of, a Yahoo! Group is more than a "chat room," and the groups in question contain several uploaded files and links that provide further information about this syndrome.

Secondly, due to the rarity of this genetic abnormality, and the comparatively mild effects on those who suffer from it, there are few to no organized support groups existing which cater to it. This Yahoo! Group may be in fact the largest and most important means of communication in regards to this syndrome. I would like to cite the Down Syndrome Wikipedia page, which has a category of Support Groups, and assert that the Yahoo! Groups serve as the primary support group for this syndrome.

Third, I would like to know what your definition of "encyclopedic" is. All of the definitions I can find state simply that an encyclopedia is a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge. Encyclopedic is also often defined simply as "comprehensive". I posit that this article cannot be considered "comprehensive" without referencing this important resource.

Finally, have a heart. Imagine receiving a phone call from a geneticist, telling you that your 18 week old fetus has a genetic abnormality that is more rare than Down Syndrome and that the medical community really has done very little study on it. You turn to the greatest repository of knowledge in the history of mankind, and one of the top 3 links is a Wikipedia article, which has omitted a helpful link to others who will help you understand and live with your child who suffers from this syndrome.

What is the problem exactly? Are those bits costing the Wikipedia foundation too much money? I'll donate enough money to store them for the next 1000 years. Were these links seriously damaging the reputation of Wikipedia more than John Seigenthaler Sr.'s fake biography? Is not the purpose of Wikipedia to shine the bright light of knowledge into the dark abyss of ignorance? When the medical profession is so uneducated about a syndrome that they are reading the article to educate themselves, shouldn't they be made aware of this important resource? Restore those links, and give a small measure of peace to a future troubled soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.221.176 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metafemale

I know my high school biology professor used the term metafemale to describe the condition. I know that the article is redirected from metafemale. I was just wondering why it wasn't mentioned in the introduction.71.7.107.208 (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Metafemale syndrome" is actually the more proper term. The Article should really be moved to that title. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

46,XX/47,XXX mosaics

The sentences "Some females with triple X syndrome have an extra X chromosome in only some of their cells. These cases are called 46,XX/47,XXX mosaics." currently appear in the Cause section. It doesn't seem to me like this describes the cause at all. Perhaps this should be moved to the introduction paragraph? I don't understand the subject enough to be sure. Apollo reactor (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symptoms wording mistake

"Females with the condition [...] have an increased risk of learning disabilities, delayed speech, and language skills."

"Risk of language skills" seems like it's a leftover from a reformulation attempt. I edited it to say "deficient language skills". I think that's a bit ugly, so if anybody knows a better formulation, please edit it in. --91.12.107.187 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading

I found the statements misleading:

"Due to the lyonization, inactivation and formation of a Barr body, in all female cells, only one X chromosome is active at any time in a female cell. Thus, triple X syndrome most often causes no unusual physical features or medical problems."

It should be mentioned that the problems associated with extra chromosomes are derived from increased dosage of genes that are not inactivated by lyonization. Otherwise, there would be no difference between 46 X and 46 XXX (if there is only 1 X active, then they should be phenotypically identical). There are very noticible differences, and lyonization doesnt give a good picture of why it is so. 71.14.67.229 (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superwoman syndrome

I removed the term "superwoman syndrome".
"Superwoman syndrome" is not an accepted name for Triple X syndrome (47,XXX).
"Superwoman syndrome" appears to be a misreading—confined to two authors with no expertise in medical genetics—of (the also inappropriate) "superfemale syndrome":

  • Joseph C. Segen, M.D., a pathologist at Buchanan General Hospital in Grundy, Virginia:
    • Segen, J. C. (1992). The dictionary of modern medicine. Carnforth, Lancs, UK: Parthenon Pub. Group. ISBN 1850703213
    • Segen, J. C. (1995). Current med talk : a dictionary of medical terms, slang & jargon. Stamford, Conn.: Appleton & Lange. ISBN 0838514642
  • William T. Blows, Ph.D., a Lecturer in Applied Biological Sciences at City University London specializing in the exoskeleton of Ankylosaurian dinosaurs:[1]
    • Blows, William T. (2003). The biological basis of nursing : mental health. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415248531

Panda411 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Coffee cups may be hot" ...

quote: An individual producing a child with the above abnormalities has higher than average risk to produce more. Most commonly, there is no observable difference in triple X, other than being taller than average. The additional X chromosome can come from either the maternal or paternal side. The condition is verified only by karyotype testing.

seems most of it has been either already expressed in the article (i.e. no visible differences), is obvious (almost every genetic disorder can be/needs to be verified by testing the karyotype) or dubious - while it is possible for the additional X to come from the father, it'd require him to have XXY (or XXYY/XXXY) by himself AND to be fertile & able to reproduce (genitalia etc) AND to be willing to have an intercourse despite the risks involved AND to have a XX/Y meiosis to even be theoretically able to give double X to his kid - without some citation stating how likely (1:...?) it is, i won't leave it here. AFAIK, XXX is usually caused by woman's XX/0 meiosis. somebody please correct me if i'm wrong (ref/cit please). Vaxquis (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Not true. A much more likely cause of XX inheritance from a father is nondisjunction during meiosis that creates the following four haploid gametes: XX, Y, Y, null. Such a father would be fully fertile, though one questions the motility of such a sperm.AWBridges (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Style

I guess this is not encyclopedic: "there is usually no distinguishable difference to the naked eye between women with triple X and the rest of the female population." Striepan (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions.

i have a question has there been any cases where women have had joint problems??? its a questions i have been wanted answered for a long time... if anyone gets on here and reads this edit it and let me know your answer. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.121.173.189 (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Symptoms section is not from a good source.

It's from a completely whacked out source and should not be cited at all for anything else than a good laugh. Since I'm a simple layman I hope someone can take care of this better than I can. --83.254.45.172 (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Doesn't Triple X syndrome also act as an alternative, so if an affected X-linked trait is passed to a female, the third X chromosome takes the place of the affected one, basically saving the female from being a carrier? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. 71.199.40.22 (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That effect occurs even in regular females, who have two X chromosomes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super female

On PubMed, I found 71 hits with a search for "super female". Most of these papers describe triple X syndrome, although few actually refer to "super female". I believe that triple X syndrome was first described as "super female" in this paper from 1959. My conclusion is that "super female" is a rarely used, obsolete term for triple X syndrome. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Axl. I take it that you already saw this discussion that I pointed to in the article's edit history? Either way, your creation of this section now means that there is no need to transport that discussion here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually I came via the discussion at WikiProject Medicine. I believe that the term "super female" merits mention in a "History" section, but not in the lead section and not as a suggested alternative name. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that you may have come to this article from WP:MED, but I see no discussion about this topic there. And I agree with including mention of super female somewhere in the article, but obviously not in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bit removed from the Signs and symptoms section

Doc James, regarding this, should we keep it removed? Restore it, or a part of it, with a better source? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have reworded and readded Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Increased distance between the eyes

This article uses two pictures showing individuals with increased distance between the eyes, but makes no mention of this being a symptom in the article. Either it should be mentioned as a symptom, or the pictures changed if it isn't a symptom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.105.55.153 (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Of the last 250 edits to this page at least 170 were vandalism and its correction. People are obviously not finding the topic they are looking for. Have protected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2017

First paragraph, third sentence: Change "Usually there is no other physical differences" to "Usually there are no other physical differences" Shbert (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thankyou for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


US of A irrelevant data

In what way does the bit under the paragraph " Epidemiology" mentioning that; " On average, five to ten girls with triple X syndrome are born in the United States each day." contribute to clarification of the epidemiological aspect, unless that rate is somehow disproportional to the average ? ( which, in case, isn't mentioned ) I suggest either to delete that sentence or add numbers covering more globally. Flight714 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2018

49.14.132.172 (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dolotta (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential renaming for articles relating to polysomy X

Requested move 28 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: 49,XXXXX is MOVED to Pentasomy X, while there is NO CONSENSUS to move Triple X syndrome (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– As it stands, the articles regarding polysomy X conditions are inconsistently named. The ideal protocol for all three major polysomy X conditions would be naming them [number]somy X, as is common for aneuploidies not better known by another name -- that is, the pages would be Trisomy, Tetrasomy, and Pentasomy X. The present article titles are Triple X syndrome, Tetrasomy X, and 49,XXXXX.

While all three conditions are known by various names, and Trisomy X in particular has a genuine claim to 'Triple X syndrome' as an equally or more accessible name, the current disparity in names is a detriment to the user-friendliness and accessibility of all three articles. I have recommended use of the '[number]somy X' format, but a 47,XXX/48,XXXX/49,XXXXX format is also possible (though would be less accessible), or a formal syndrome name if a well-known one happened to exist for any of the relevant disorders. However, the present situation is far from optimal. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources, it appears that "Triple X syndrome" is the WP:Common name for this topic (Trisomy X). This article could continue with that name while renaming the other article "Pentasomy X." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major article edits

Once the renaming debate is over, I plan to make some major edits to this page and the other pages regarding polysomy X syndromes for quality purposes. This article isn't bad, per se, but I'd argue it's a lot closer to the Start than B classification, and most sections can be massively expanded or revamped. I'd WP:BEBOLD and dive into it after the move, but I just want to make sure there isn't anyone who's particularly married to any short/undersourced sections or has their own plans to improve this and related articles. Also, given its status as a semi-protected article that previously saw extensive vandalism due to the name's connotations, I figured I'd leave a statement on the talk page so nobody gets surprised when the edit history reveals substantial changes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

37.106.86.121 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 13:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2018

2405:204:A40C:3232:0:0:886:30A5 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

Please add a remark on autism like features in triple X syndrome, also in adults: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.8[Opens in a new window] to the references on psychological problems. DrTripleXsyndrome (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Triple X syndrome → Trisomy X – Three years ago now, this (as bundled with the pentasomy X move) closed as no consensus. I think it's time to revisit the topic again, considering recent work on these articles, the longstanding name consistency for the other disorders, and the nuances of WP:COMMONNAME.

The matter of "what's the single most common name for this disorder?" (which is a slightly different thing to the COMMONNAME policy, which explicitly discusses both ambiguity and contexts where a less common name is appropriate) is ambiguous, but points overall to trisomy X. NORD, Orphanet, and AXYS use "trisomy X". Mayo, Medline, and Cleveland use "triple X syndrome". Unique uses both. My consistent impression is that patient organizations have a strong preference away from 'triple X syndrome', and this is reflected in much of the literature, which for sex chromosome aneuploidies is intertwined enough with those organizations that it's difficult to draw a fine line. The publications of the researchers most preeminent in this field trend towards trisomy X, see e.g. Tartaglia (random papers drawn from that sample: 1, 2). Trisomy X is the term used by the eXtraordinarY Kids Program, one of the major evaluation and treatment programs for sex chromosome aneuploidies. Overall, although "triple X syndrome" has nontrivial use, the preference in recent years and amongst those who work directly in this field is away from it and towards "trisomy X".

In addition, there's the consistency argument. Tetrasomy X and pentasomy X have been at the polysomy titles for four and three years respectively without issue, and standardizing the set by having all three in the same place can only be a positive. There's also an argument for conciseness here (two words over three).

Overall, I think our article policies point strongly in the direction that "trisomy X" is the preferable name. It's the preference amongst patient and support organizations, at worst equal to the current title on the grand scale, and consistent with our other usage. It's also, well, a much less awkward phrasing, which doesn't hurt. Vaticidalprophet 06:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment generally speaking Vaticidalprophet makes a good point above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AXYS is titled "About 47,XXX (Trisomy X)" and uses 47,XXX more than it does Trisomy X. GARD uses "47 XXX syndrome". Searching PubMed article titles (trisomy x, triple x, 47,XXX) produces significantly more papers for the latter. (Btw, Pubmed ignores the "," or "-" in a name, so that doesn't affect the results). Searching the whole text (removing [ti]) similarly shows a strong preference for the latter, though it is possible some are referring to the karyotype rather than talking about the syndrome. It seems to be quite a mess. For example this paper can't make its mind up which of the three terms to use, and one wonders if its three authors couldn't agree and just rolled some dice each time. This paper says "Trisomy X, otherwise known as 47,XXX" but then consistently uses 47,XXX afterwards. You mention Tartaglia but their profile includes just one paper with "Trisomy X" in the title in the last 10 years, and one with "Triple X" in the last 10 years. The former consistently refers to "trisomy X syndrome", which they abbreviate TXS, rather than just "Trisomy X". The latter interchangeably says "females with 47,XXX" and "females with Triple X", and adds "syndrome" to that half the time.
    When you say patient organizations dislike 'triple X syndrome', can you link to sources for this? Do you have explicit evidence of a shift, such as perhaps old versions of a website on Archive.org or editions of a book using one term and newer versions using another. I appreciate the desire to avoid the porn association, but perhaps "trisomy x" hasn't caught on because "trisomy" is such an opaque jargon term. -- Colin°Talk 17:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support moving this page to another name. I don't have a strong preference between Trisomy X, Trisomy X syndrome, or 47,XXX. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trisomy X, oppose 47,XXX as I feel that is not an intuitive name and less recognizable. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on the Google Ngrams[4]. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rreagan007, to be honest, the numbers in the ngram are so tiny, that I think you are just seeing noise. The British English corpus shows both terms equal, and the US one only shows a 3x difference, but I don't know how many words extra that is. It could be one book chapter or one or two papers. To give you an example, PubMed only showed 4 papers published in 2020 with one term in the title and 2 papers with the other term. We are at the level of tossing a coin three times and trying to conclude if it is fair. -- Colin°Talk 08:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Ajpolino (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. And the recent-years n-gram stats should be discounted as heavily influenced by Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Some1 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sandbox rewrite

This article gets somewhat more attention than the unwatched ones I've been sandbox rewriting, so I'm leaving a talk page note for transparency, so people who pay attention to the article can see what I'm doing before it goes into mainspace, and to allow people to raise any concerns they have as I go along. I'm currently rewriting this article at User:Vaticidalprophet/Trisomy X, as I previously did with tetrasomy X (now a GA undergoing pre-FAC peer review) and pentasomy X (now finishing up GAN). I'd estimate at the time of this message I'm about one-eighth through one-tenth of the way through. I prefer to work in sandboxes because my style for radical rewrites is too messy (leaving stuff half-finished for extended periods, linking stuff to refer to later, etc) to be mainspace-friendly. Feel free to take a look. Vaticidalprophet 23:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the mainspace version now. Vaticidalprophet 15:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Reviewed: Did you know nominations/WHIS
  • Comment: As with Did you know nominations/Pentasomy X, this is a messy page history to evaluate, as it was rewritten in userspace and merged into the pre-existing mainspace article. The last pre-expansion diff is here, at 4946 B/809 words readable prose size. The expansion at the time of hitting mainspace is here, at 29 kB/4513 words readable prose size.

5x expanded by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Copyvio report shows that violation is unlikely. This is my first DYK review so please feel free to give it another look! Salukk (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Trisomy X/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Vaticidalprophet, I will review this article. I'll leave some in-depth comments later. It is quite a long article so I will note it may take a while to review this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Prose, POV, and coverage

General:

  • 85-90, 5-10%, 80-90%, etc. - Per MOS:PERCENT, the percent symbol is fine. However, if it's a number range it should be an endash rather than a hyphen. I would recommend going through and changing instances of hyphens in number ranges, such as those I just listed, to endashes.
  • Check that the English variant is consistent. I see both "criticised" and "dehumanizing".
  • Similarly, consistent quotes. I see 'superfemale' (single quote) and illegitimate product of a Graeco-Roman alliance" (double quote). Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • no symptoms significant enough to inspire formal testing. - Is "inspire" the best word for this context? I think "require" or a synonym would work better.
    • I don't think 'require' is accurate. It's very hit-or-miss whether women with trisomy X, even symptomatic cases, get karyotyped, so a phrasing that implies "this definitely happens when X or Y symptom is there" would give a false impression that it's a routine procedure. Vaticidalprophet 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • increased height, with an average height around 172 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in) - This may work better as a single clause like "increased average height of around 172 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in)" or something like that, but this is optional.
  • Most women with trisomy X go on to live normal lives - "go on to" is probably unnecessary here, but "live...lives" can be seen as repetitive. I suggest "Most women with trisomy X have normal lives" or something similar.
  • cohort studies on children with sex chromosome aneuploidies which followed them into adulthood found that people with these disorders are often mildly affected - This seems like a long clause without a comma. I would rephrase this a bit, but I don't have specific suggestions at the moment.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation:

  • 40% of girls with trisomy X aged six to thirteen are above the 90th percentile in height. - Regardless of MOS:PERCENT, I think it is a bit strange to begin a sentence with a number.
  • slightly below one standard deviation above - Also, "below...above" is unusual, I would say something like "almost one standard deviation above..."
  • These differences are usually minor, and do not have an impact on the daily lives of girls and women with the condition. - I'd suggest getting rid of the comma.
  • Precocious puberty has been reported,[6][23] but is not considered a characteristic of the syndrome.[3] - Likewise here.
  • and some patients followed in the medical literature - Followed as in studied over a long period of time?
  • with 40% to 90% in different studies requiring it. - Does this mean, in the different groups studied?
  • The psychological portrait of trisomy X is not entirely clear, and appears to be complicated by a more severe phenotype in postnatally than prenatally diagnosed groups - The comma here could probably also be removed.
  • but by their mid-thirties having stronger interpersonal bonds and healthy relationships - Should "having" be changed to a subject-verb, like "they had"?
  • Schizophrenia in trisomy X may be associated with intellectual disability - If I am assuming correctly, there is no conclusive evidence of such?
  • For instance, psychogenic stomach pains - Psychogenic is a disambiguation page.
    • Disambiguated appropriately. On the comma notes: I think this is personal style. I trend towards a slightly comma-heavy sentence structure, and I don't think any of those trend into grammatical inaccuracy. Vaticidalprophet 03:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mosaicism, where both 47,XXX and other cell lines are present occurs in approximately 10% of cases. - Should there be a comma between "present" and "occurs"?
  • Cognitive development is more typical, and long-term outcomes improved - On the contrary, I do not think this comma is necessary, as "long-term outcomes improved" isn't a complete sentence.
  • little-understood - I also think there shouldn't be a hyphen here, since "little understood" isn't an adjective here but rather an adverb and verb.

Causes:

  • Mosaic is a duplicate link.
    • This is an intentional duplink -- it's in contravention of what the MOS currently says, but I strongly suspect it's what the MOS will say in two years. Most (~60%) readers are on mobile. Readers don't generally read articles as one block, even though writers often assume they do. Because mobile readers have all sections collapsed by default, their patterns are even more jumpy/spread-out. For a concept like genetic mosaicism that's unfamiliar to most of the general population, there should (IMO) be links available anywhere a reader might reasonably be expected to begin reading the article from, like the beginning of a section. Mobile readers can't just scroll up conveniently to a link in another section that'd be nearby for a desktop reader, so an article written to be navigatable/useful to the majority of Wikipedia's audience needs to treat sections as fairly self-contained, including in links. Vaticidalprophet 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trisomy X is a random event; it is not caused by lifestyle factors or parental fault - I think this sentence can be combined without using a semicolon, e.g. "Trisomy X occurs randomly and is not caused by lifestyle factors or parental fault".
  • trisomy X occurs randomly and has nothing to do with the chromosomes of the parents, and little chance of recurring in the family. - But in a minority, it isn't a random occurrence? Also, the comma after "chromosomes of the parents" may be unnecessary.

Diagnosis and differential diagnosis:

  • Nothing of concern here.

Prognosis:

Epidemiology:

  • Trisomy X only occurs in females, as the Y chromosome is in most cases necessary for male sexual development - Seems strange to have this paragraph be its own sentence at the end. Actually, for those of us who are not good at biology (not me, but other people), I think it is worth considering mentioning this earlier on. Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, this bit is a bit of a WIP and an "improve between GAN and FAC" thing -- that is, when transforming the coverage from 'broad' to 'comprehensive'. There's a bit more to write in this section to get it really sparkling, but it's still a good overview of the topic. This sentence is currently set off as its own section, but I plan to expand the topic in a way that gets it reading a bit more naturally -- it's just that, at the current level of resolution, this is taking a backseat to other issues and making sure the core of the article is fully fleshed out. Vaticidalprophet 01:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely. I am only conducting a GA review here, not an FA review, so the standard is a bit lower. I was just pointing out that, even in good articles, it is a bit weird to see standalone sentences (but not by any means disallowed). Epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History:

  • even at the time - "Even" may not be necessary here.
  • have since been criticized - Within how many decades did these come to be viewed as dehumanizing?
  • until the death of one of the researchers - same for both cohorts?
  • due to the then-present perception that XYY syndrome was associated with violent criminality - this could probably be recast in active voice, e.g. "because [the public] perceived that XYY syndrome was associated with violent criminality" or something like that, but it's optional. It just read a bit clunkily to me.
  • condition's discoverer Patricia Jacobs - I feel like this can be mentioned earlier in the section.
  • professor of pediatrics - how about "pediatrics professor"?
  • around one-fifth of patients at the clinic have trisomy X - Is this when it was founded, or currently? Or is the clinic intending to seek patients for which one-fifth have trisomy X?

Society and culture:

  • Awareness of these conditions is accentuating - Is "accentuating" the right word?
  • in the late 2010s, state governments across the United States declared May to be National X & Y Chromosome Variation Awareness Month. - Kind of unrelated, but some or all?
  • Campaigns led by parents and caregivers of children with sex chromosome aneuploidies to raise awareness and increase available support made significant strides over the course of the 2010s to increase awareness,[82] decrease stigma, and improve the state of research.[85] - The portion of the sentence before the first comma is a little confusing because of the lack of punctuation. I get what this is saying: "The parents and caregivers of children with sex chromosome aneuploidies have created campaigns to raise awareness and increase available support. These campaigns made significant strides over the course of the 2010s to increase awareness, decrease stigma, and improve the state of research." Maybe a wording like this would be better.

In other animals:

  • Six cases of trisomy X have been recorded in dogs, for which the karyotype is 79,XXX compared to 78,XX for an euploid female dog.[87] Unlike in humans, trisomy X in dogs is strongly linked to infertility, either primary anestrus or infertility with an otherwise normal estrous cycle. - if only six cases have been recorded, wouldn't the characterization of "strongly linked" suffer from small sample bias? Especially since these six cases may have been severe enough to be recorded, and that these cases resulted in infertility. However, I understand this may be what the source said.
    • As far as I can get from the sources, they're assumed fully connected. (So far as I can tell, in all nonhuman species where it's been observed trisomy X is always associated with infertility, although this is slightly too OR to say in wikivoice; the thing you pointed out with the other clause here will hopefully make it a bit clearer.) Vaticidalprophet 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to domesticated cattle, trisomy X has been observed in river buffalo. - Any effects of this? Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

This is a medical article so I will check whether the sources largely follow the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • 'Karyotype' as a term has multiple meanings, all of which are used here. It may refer to a person's chromosome complement, to the test used to discern said chromosome complement, or to an image of chromosomes ascertained via such a test - this is fine, but I would basically clarify whenever you are referring to a test (I would assume the images and the complement themselves are unlikely to be confused).

References:

  • All images are licensed properly (though they don't contain alt text, which is optional for the purposes of the criteria). Image captions are appropriate.
  • Looking through Earwig's copyvio detector, I can't immediately find any.

General comments

Infobox photo caption

We propose that we write Two girls and a young woman with trisomy X, because this is a formal context, and we consider it pejorative to be calling a mature adult a "girl" here. Elizium23 (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I also thought the phrasing of the caption was a little off Dracophyllum 06:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily mind that compromise, though I think it a little clunky. It's better than 'females'. Vaticidalprophet 05:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Female/girl/woman" wording

Pinging Elizium23 and Sandstein. Every possible rendition of "female", "girl", and "women" in different parts of the lead has been litigated quite extensively since the period the article's been brought to FAC, and I suspect it needs fuller discussion than the current pattern of undiscussed changes. The prior discussion on the infobox caption led to the conclusion "girls and women" was an acceptable wording, although no one's changed it to that yet. The alt text is still "females", which I think is pretty clunky and should be standardized to the caption. IMO, "female" is the correct phrasing for the first sentence of the lead, even though it's inappropriate for the caption/alt text (IMO, "female" > "females"). This is a medical article, and it's standard practice for disorders that affect one sex to refer to patients as "male" or "female" (rather than "men" or "women") in at least the very opening when the condition is a congenital one that affects patients over the entire lifespan, and so the adult implications of "man/woman" are inappropriate. See e.g. Turner syndrome, Tetrasomy X, Pentasomy X. I think at any rate these disputes at least need to be resolved, though. Vaticidalprophet 16:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet, thanks for the ping. I'm a layperson, but I find "a female" to be insulting and objectifying, whereas "a female patient", where "female" is an adjective rather than a noun, to be perfectly normal. The age issue can be circumvented by writing "girls or women", as is occasionally done elsewhere in the article. I'm ready to convinced otherwise though if this is standard for medical articles; do we have a MOS on this? Sandstein 17:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trisomy_X&oldid=1032128241"