Talk:XYYY syndrome

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 MeegsC (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Karyotype of the XYYY syndrome

• ... that XYYY syndrome, a chromosome abnormality where a man has two extra Y chromosomes, has only twelve recorded cases? Source: A Case Study of the Identity Development of an Adolescent Male with Emotional Disturbance and 48,XYYY Karyotype in an Institutional Setting

• Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Legend Entertainment

Created by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 16:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: New article. No copyvios detected. Concise and interesting hook. QPQ completed. I added the karyotype image. Feel free to remove if not desired. I thought it was worth including. TJMSmith (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to have an image! Vaticidalprophet 05:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:XYYY syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bibeyjj (talk · contribs) 18:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Opening Summary

Hi Vaticidalprophet! I'm happy to take on the review of this article. I remember working with you previously on 17q12 microdeletion syndrome, and see that you have also created and nominated Pentasomy X - thank you for the very significant work you have done on these articles relating to chromosomal abnormalities.

As with my previous review, I will be using Template:GABox to keep track of general progress. Comments on each criterion (including why it passes, is put on hold, or fails) will be listed under relevant headings below. I should have good time availability this week to respond to queries, so I hope that this article will pass quickly. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey again, Bibeyjj! I haven't been in the best of health lately so I may not be prompt, but I'll try not to leave you hanging. To anticipate something under the 2s I think you're likely to bring up -- yes, the two reviews the article takes a lot from are very hard to find. I ended up getting them though WP:RX interlibrary loan, and it took a couple weeks. I'm happy to email the PDFs, because it's likely to be the quickest way you'll find them. Vaticidalprophet 03:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vaticidalprophet! Thank you for your update. I'm sorry to hear about your health - rest assured that I am happy to give you more time to respond to queries if you need this. I'm happy to trust your judgement on the 2 review articles - I have managed to find URLs for them (albeit only the abstract is given). At the moment, the major queries are reference formatting (links), whether there should be a "Prognosis" section, and whether an additional image would be helpful. Other than that, the article is doing well. Hoping you are well, Bibeyjj (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:
· · ·

1a

Pass. I cannot identify any issues with spelling, punctuation, or grammar. The majority of the text is broadly understandable to a lay audience, although I would like to see a few more Wikilinks. Prose is clear and concise, handling subject matter well. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

1b

Pass. All core WP:MOS policies are complied with. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• WP:LEAD complied with. The lead is an accessible overview, covering the main points of the article. The alternative name is handled correctly. The length is appropriate.
• WP:LAYOUT complied with. Headings and order are formatted correctly. The absence of an "External links" section is notable, and may be considered in future - this does not affect the order, which is correct.
  • WP:MEDORDER "Diseases or disorders or syndromes" complied with. Clearly follows the recommended order of headings. The notable exception is "Comparison with XYY syndrome", which is appropriate.
• WP:WORDS complied with. Terminology and phrasings are unbiased, also complying with WP:NPOV. Phrases are suitably specific. No obscene language is included.
• WP:WAF is not applicable.
• WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists is complied with. No such lists are included, and none are needed.

2a

Pass. All 23 references are inline references, and are formatted correctly following WP:LAYOUT. Bibeyjj (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

2b

Hold. The reliance on primary sources is acceptable for such a rare disease. Sources are well represented in the prose of the article. There are no statements which fall under WP:Likely to be challenged. References also comply with WP:Scientific citation guidelines, referencing whenever necessary, and in the correct format (complying with the table below). A few references would benefit from a link to a website, with suggestions listed below. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Reference Quality

#	Type	References
7	Primary Source	2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17
1	Secondary Source	3, 12, 16
0	Tertiary Source	19, 19a, 19b, 19c
2	Reliable Website	1, 10, 18, 20

• 2 lacks a link to its source. A link can be found at https://europepmc.org/article/med/7888137.
• 3 lacks a link to its source. A link can be found at https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/96/4/672.short.
• 5 lacks a link to its source. A link can be found at https://europepmc.org/article/med/1296523.
• 8 lacks a link to its source. A link can be found at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ973042.
• 19 lacks a link. A link can be found at http://hdl.handle.net/10822/547929.
• 19a lacks a link. A link can be found at http://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=PASCAL83X0337989.
• 19b lacks a link. I haven't managed to find a link.
• 19c lacks a link. A link can be found at https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.1320440535.

Resolved all the resolvable linking issues. Vaticidalprophet 05:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Pass. All of the links that could be added have been added. I can see no other issues with referencing. Bibeyjj (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

2c

Pass. Complies with WP:NOR. All information is verifiable to references, with a good coverage of inline references in the prose. The high reliance on primary sources is explained by the rarity of the disease - many of them also include a non-systematic literature review, which improves their reliability. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

2d

Pass. The article has been put through 5 different online plagiarism tools, which detected no plagiarism. The article follows WP:SUMMARY, thereby avoiding copyright infringement from its sources. There are no large sections of text without an inline reference. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

3a

Hold. Most of the major aspects are covered following headings recommended by WP:MEDORDER "Diseases or disorders or syndromes". Whilst content on "Prognosis" has been mentioned, it might be worth sectioning this. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Taking a glance again at my better sources, I don't think a separate prognosis section is quite viable. The prognosis content in Presentation is blended in with the rest of it, while there isn't really anything at all on long-term outcomes as their own thing. Vaticidalprophet 10:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Pass. I do understand what you mean about the lack of prognostic data, and that this would make a "Prognosis" section very short and hard to reference. As such, I am happy with the current coverage of the major aspects of the subject. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

3b

Pass. Complies with WP:LENGTH. The article includes appropriate information to a suitable level of detail. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

4

Pass. Clearly follows WP:NPOV, handling issues (such as historical stereotypes of aggression in poly-Y syndromes) sensitively and with due context. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

5

Pass. No edit warring since the article's creation on 18 March 2021. 3 reverted edits in this time, all appropriately reverted by the nominator and not contested. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

6a

Pass. "File:Peripheral-blood-karyotype-result-belonging-to-the-subject-compatible-with-48-XYYY.png" is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license, and was uploaded by the article nominator. I have checked the original source at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ccr3.1311, which shows that the image is available under this license. "File:Picture of right hand.jpg" is licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0. If "File:XXXX syndrome.svg" is also used, this is also available under the CC BY 4.0 license. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

6b

Hold. The current image is suitable and has a good caption. I appreciate how difficult it is to find appropriate images for fairly niche articles such as this, but I wonder if you would consider including an image of a nondisjunction event like you did for Tetrasomy X. In fact, that particular image (File:XXXX syndrome.svg) would be appropriate just to show the principle of a nondisjunction event. I'll leave this for you to decide, and am happy to pass this criterion no matter your final opinion. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The nondisjunction images were made by another user a while ago (not sure how long 'a while' is, but they were in those articles when I first read them c. 2010-2011). On the timescale of one GA review, I don't plan to see if the original creator is still active, and think using an image from another article might be somewhat confusing to readers/inconsistent with other articles -- the most relevant comparison, XXYY syndrome, does have its own image. I also can't admit to any graphic design skills of my own. I might look into it in the longer term, though, because it's a worthwhile suggestion. Vaticidalprophet 10:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hold. I have checked the edits of the original creator of "File:XXXX syndrome.svg" and the related graphics - the user does not appear to be very active anymore. Whilst a graphic of the particular nondisjunction events of XYYY would be nice, I accept that this would be very difficult to achieve without experience of graphic editing. The article already gives a good description of how XYYY arises, and any image would be supplementary to that description, therefore non-essential. As such, I am happy with there being no image of nondisjunction.

One other query I had was whether to include an image of 1 or 2 common symptoms, particularly clinodactyly (which is noted in a number of the case studies). "Presentation" is already quite a significant section, so highlighting 1 particular common symptom may be helpful. What do you think?

I added a picture of clinodactyly (which is good advice, because it's one that I keep forgetting to actually define in articles). Should be decently illustrated now. Vaticidalprophet 18:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Pass. Thank you for adding this image, with a good caption. This all seems good. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Concluding Summary

Pass. Hi Vaticidalprophet. Congratulations - XYYY syndrome has passed Good Article Review. Thank you for the work you have put into the article, nearly single-handedly getting it to this standard. I'm satisfied that all 12 criteria have been met. Hoping you are well, Bibeyjj (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

Category:Intersex variations

Where would I find the consensus about intersex not including duplicated "expected" sex chromosomes, as mentioned by @Vaticidalprophet? Not arguing, but curious. IAmNitpicking (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

These karyotypes are consistently excluded from descriptions of sex chromosome DSD/intersex (there is some dispute over ideal wording). Major best-practice/consensus descriptors of sex chromosome DSDs vary on whether they include Turner/Klinefelter or if they only include mosaic karyotypes with both Y and nullisomy-Y cells, but they do not include these; see here, here (the 'Chicago classification' which modern definitions are based on or heavily inspired by), here (paywall), some of the studies (probably most individually paywalled) in this major symposium (note particularly the large Egyptian sample of chromosomally intersex patients, of which none had any karyotypes like these despite their very high population prevalence)...

These are conditions where the sex-development phenotype is essentially indistinguishable from someone lacking the extra chromosome. Even by the definition of sex chromosome intersexuality that includes Klinefelter's et al, they're consistently excluded. Vaticidalprophet 03:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. IAmNitpicking (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)