Talk:XXXXY syndrome

message: Hello.
I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article is already under has our tag, I have now reassessed it to make sure if is in the right WikiProject. Upon reassessment of the article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown below:
*Reassess article with class and importance factors
*Reassessed tags for correct placements
*added genetics task force
Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Reassessment for [[WP:MED|WikiProject Medicine]]

message: In this peer review, I'll review the article based on each of the 5 elements of Wikipedia articles and provide overall remarks and suggestions.
1. Lead Section
Your lead section is sparse and only introduces the topic without providing a concise overview of the article. To improve, I would add the most important introductory information about your topic to this section, where you make sure to indicate the importance of the topic and give the reader a good grasp of the article. Good use of citations in the lead sentence. Work to expand this section to properly introduce your topic.
2. A clear structure 
The article has a clear structure that is organized in an understandable manner. However, as with the lead section, each section to needs to be fleshed out to provide adequate information about the chromosomal abnormality. 
3. Balanced coverage
Given the small amount of actual content, the signs and symptoms portion is slightly longer than other sections. Again, I would suggest adding more content to the other sections in particular to provide a proper overview of the topic for the reader.
4. Neutral content
While there isn't much content, all content appeals to be neutral and properly cited.
5. Reliable sources
The small amount of content is cited properly with proper sources. The only citation required is already marked in the article, so you should work to cite this and add citations when adding new content.
Overall Review:
This article appears to be in its preliminary stage and needs much work to improve its content. Most writing and spelling is correct and easy to follow, but some small errors occur. For example, X-inactivation has unnecessary parentheses, and carefully read the article to find other errors. It certainly sounds like an interesting topic and let me know if you would like another peer review when you have more content for review on the page. RobertDRosner (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert's Peer Review 

message: Although this page is short, the information already here is clear and easy to understand. The list of symptoms, in particular, is nicely presented and makes it easy to bounce between pages if a particular symptom sounds interesting. There are a couple of places where it might be beneficial to explain a little more. For example, I would like a little more explanation of the effects of X-inactivation on this syndrome. You mention that it minimizes the effects of the additional gene dosage, but you might want to explain more about why this is important. You might also want to clarify what you mean in Pathophysiology when you say that 49,XXXXY is “genetic but not hereditary,” or link to the Wikipedia article on nondisjunction to explain the mechanism. Right now, your explanation makes it sound like a rare hereditary disorder. 
One other peer reviewer has already mentioned that the sections are unbalanced, with Diagnosis and Treatment particularly lacking. There may not be a lot to say, but even a few sentences in the Treatment section will make your article feel a little more complete. 
Overall, this is an informative article. I don’t know how much research has been done on this topic, so it might make sense for the page to be so small. If there isn’t much new research to add, work on clarifying some of the existing points to make it more accessible to readers who may not be familiar with genetics. Cluffa (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex's Peer Review 

message: I agree on a lot of the points with the other peer-reviewers. Everything appears to be pretty clearly organized with neutral content, but additional information could be added to make the article a little more well-rounded (except for the symptoms section as that has a lot more information than the others). The "Treatment" section specifically needs information or the section title should be removed. Also, although most of the information is clear, the genetic but not hereditary paragraph needs clarification, especially because you state that it is not hereditary but then say the chance of inheriting the disorder is 1%. Additionally, the lead section is easy to understand but could probably use some additional information, once again to balance out the article. All sources appear to be reliable and everything appears to be properly cited. 
There are some small grammatical/sentence structure errors throughout the article as well. As mentioned by another peer-reviewer, I do not think x-inactivation needs to be put in quotations in this context. I would also suggest changing "or/and" to "and/or" in the list of symptoms as that is how it is typically written. The last two sentences of the diagnosis section could be reworded or combined as well, as the two short sentences are discussing the same thing.
Overall, the article has a good start, but just needs some additional information/explanation to clarify points and balance the page.Njiter98 (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naomi's Peer Review 

message: Have you all seen this page? https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/49xxxxy-syndrome
Forbero (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources 

message: — Assignment last updated by AOXQueen (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Science Communication