# Talk:Noonan syndrome with multiple lentigines

Am presently working on expanding this page, any edits towards moving this to at least good article status would be appreciatedUnseemlyWeasel 03:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

will be obtaining photos of two generations of three generation family with LEOPARD
UnseemlyWeasel 00:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Have now posted images, actually was able to find fairly decent photo of originating member, so have photos of all three generations in this family clusterUnseemlyWeasel 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded this stub article with an eye towards nominating this as a good article, I believe the rarity of the illness itself precludes FA status-I may be wrong. I would also like to thank Arcadian for originating the article, and DragonflySixtyseven for rescuing it from a vandal.UnseemlyWeasel 04:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking at other rare syndromes listed as good articles, i.e. Robinow syndrome, that thanks to feedback in Peer review that this article is at that level now, so I have placed it in nomination.UnseemlyWeasel 15:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My suggestions:

lead is too short
History shouldn't be the first section?
"There have also been reports that, in patients with the syndrome, there may be a higher rate of certain forms of leukemia." ( a reference would be useful)
for Prevention and Management section, an image (like Image:Autosomal Dominant Pedigree Chart.svg could fit well
References section should have div small
See also should be before References
There must be more external links
What about category? 
Anyway great work! NCurse  work 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback.

will rework lead
This was something I had myself thought hard about and initially had the history as first section, however in the peer review process of this, it was suggested that since many of the symptoms are expanded on in the diagnosis section that this be placed first. I like both approaches for different reasons and am not sure which would be better. Will consider further, since I think expansion of terms is best left in the diagnosis section.
This is a sentence I thought had been removed since I found that there has been only one report of leukemia, and I found the reference for the case. Will remove.
Will try with image suggested, possibly with lead.
no prob on div small (oops :-D)
also no prob on moving see also
will work on more external links, however they may be of limited usefullness, there is no support group for Leopard syndrome per se, and the others pretty much restate the e-med article.
good question, will look for appropriate categories to add this to.
Again thank you.
All of my suggestins were fixed. Thanks for your efforts. Great work! I pass it to become good article. NCurse  work 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this article to the more common and accurate name, LEOPARD syndrome, as requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -kotra (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:LEOPARD syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
An image should be in the lead
The lead should be broken into a few paragraphs rather than one
The sections need to be more divided.  For example the treatment section discusses the genetics ( ie that it is autosomal dominate ) and then gives an image.
What is the life expectancy?
Divide treatment and prognosis into two
Images are just placed about.  Images of the condiction should all be in the signs and symptoms section maybe in a a gallery.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have been done
no other paragraph breaks within lead
agree with division of prognosis and treatment (however the reason genetics was discussed within treatment section was merely a function of the genetic counselling being part of the treatment in deciding to have children)
life expectancy is mentioned but without specific numbers in prognosis section, as a function of "live a normal life", however adding the life expectancy would then get into a discussion more of it depending on where the patient is born.
agree with this and have done
appears to have been done and actually like this approach somewhat better
UnseemlyWeasel (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


### GA Sweeps: Kept
I am closing the review on behalf of Jmh649. It appears the issues he raised have been addressed. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)