Talk:Flynn–Aird syndrome

message: I have made comments for the whole class in User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. Take a look at them since some of them are appropiate for this article.
When citing several times the same reference: When the same reference is cited several times it should appear only once in the references section. See an example on how to do it: before, difference, after. (In this case I only fixed one as an example).--Garrondo (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks alot for your comments. The referencing should be better now. Luhizi (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fast comments

message: Nick, Ben and Aziz,
To start, your introduction is great: it gives a brief overview of the disease as well as what will be further covered in the article. Although the introduction does touch on a variety of information, there should be a sub-section of the article for causes of the disease. Although the pathophysiology of the disease is unknown, you may want to expand on the theories to add some bulk to the article. Your symptoms section is very well written and informative as to the progression and expression of the disease through the decades of life. In addition, I love how you have a separate for section for the genetics of the disease, as I have noticed it is something that other groups have not focused on, and is very important in understanding the disease.
The biggest critique is the length of the article: it has a vast amount of information and you all seemed well versed on the material, it only touches the surface of the disease. Following reading the article, I noticed you only use one source. This could be why there is a limited amount of information regarding the disease.  It may be helpful to investigate the nursing library at BC or libraries at various medical facilities in the area for texts regarding the illness. Further research could add some depth to the already well written article. You have made some incredible improvements to the existing page, however further research might help to expand the page a little more.
(Crockeer (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for your comments, we changed the location of the history section and it seems to tie in better. We also brushed up on the grammar.Luhizi (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Comments 

message: hi ben, aziz and nick, nice job with such a limited amount of information. a few things i noticed:
*Aird's name is misspelled towards the end of the article
*There are several problems with singular/plural term usage
*"Respectably" should be "respectively" when discussing the Japan and German studies.NeuroJoe (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Boston College BI481 Project

message: I have compared this version of the page, , from before the start of the project, with this version, , after.
Scale from 1 to 5
1 = most negative
5 = most positive
1. Is the prose clear and concise? 4: There are run-on sentences, such as the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. Aird's name is misspelled in the last section.
2. Does the article comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, and list incorporation? 4: "Syndrome" should not be capitalized, and there should not be spaces before the inline citations.
3. Is the article properly and adequately referenced? 1: This is the biggest problem. Only a single reference is cited. This is entirely insufficient. Furthermore, looking at the link provided to the abstract of that source, it does not appear to support much of the text that it purports to support. Where did this information come from?
4. Are in-line citations provided in accordance with Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? 1: See criterion 3 above, and the last two sections of the article are unsourced.
5. Does the article address the main aspects of the topic? 3: Difficult to assess, without better referencing.
6. Does the article stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? 5
7. Does the article represent viewpoints fairly and without bias? 5
8. Is the article illustrated by images that are relevant and are tagged with their proper status? 5
Overall, I think the single most important issue about this article is that much more complete sourcing is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: Tryptofish (talk)
:I'm a bit puzzled by this tag.  There is essentially no literature on the syndrome except the initial publication by Flynn and Aird (as a citation check shows), so it seems likely that if the article is not a copyvio of their 1965 paper, it is not a copyvio of anything. Looie496 (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong, but it seems WP:DUCK to me, per item #3 of my review above. There's an awful lot of information that doesn't come from the source cited, so it must have come from somewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely secondary or tertiary sources, rather than primary. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright query