Wikipedia:Featured article review/Down syndrome/archive1
Down syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Neurology task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, User:Fvasconcellos
- Choppy prose. Many sections have one-sentence paragraphs, such as the first section of "Signs and symptoms," "Congenital heart disease," "other complications," last paragraph of "Cognitive development," third and fourth paragraphs of "History."
- [Citation needed] under "Infertility" section.
- "Screening" section is mostly unsourced.
- "Examination at birth" section is mostly unsourced.
- Outdated statement ("Current research (as of 2008) has shown that Down syndrome is due to a random event during the formation of sex cells or pregnancy.") in "Epidemiology" section.
- Many refs are missing authorship info.
- Notable individuals contains several unsourced entries and would probably be better as prose than list.
- "Portrayal in fiction" is also a big unsourced list.
- "Research" section is unsourced for first several paragraphs. We really should have a source to verify Arron et al's research.
- European Down Syndrome Association is a redlink — is it notable enough for inclusion here? The only source for it is primary.
Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw this listed on WikiProject Disability. After I read the intro, my reaction was: Wow, they wrote all those intricate technicalities in the introduction, but failed to mention that it's the most common genetic cause of mental retardation? See [1] for a ref. It almost seems it was deliberately written in an impenetrable fashion. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The Research section seems to start the article anew with another defintion etc.; rather weird. Also, the two different citation styles used in that section are a bit distracting, but TenPoundHammer errs when he writes that there are no references for the first part of that. They are given in the "Research bibliography" section, starting with Arron et al. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm more concerned with the amount of "against abortion" material in the article relative to the opposite POV. The abortion rates for this condition are over 90%, but 2/3 of the ethics section is dedicated to impeaching that option. Most of those arguments are repetitive in nature, and appear to have been selected for the shock value of their formulation. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)