Talk:Short QT syndrome

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 17:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am happy to review this article for GA status. I am a clinical laboratory geneticist, so I do overlap with the subject area a bit, but I have no conflicts. I have done some work on other medicine related articles, so I am familiar with the requirements. I like to start with a review where I comment on any issues I notice, and then after that dialog has been completed, hit the review according to the bullet pointed criteria. Canada Hky (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• The abbreviation SQT is used in the table, but undefined in the body text.  Done
• "Those affected by short QT syndrome have a tendency to develop abnormal heart rhythms." - should this be "increased tendency"?  Done
• "If someone with long QT syndrome is examined while their heart is beating in an abnormal rhythm such as atrial fibrillation, this can be detected by feeling their pulse. No abnormal signs will usually be found when examining someone with short QT syndrome while their heart is beating in a normal rhythm." These two sentence don't make sense to me, because they are discussing two different concepts. LQT with an abnormal rhythm and SQT with a normal rhythm.  Done Thanks for picking up the typo. Should be describing SQT in both cases.
• Gene names should be italicized.  Done
• "Mutation" has fallen out of common usage, per ACMG and AMP guidelines - "pathogenic variant" is preferred.  Done I have changed all but the first mention of mutation as I feel it is helpful to use this word once.
• The table in the "Causes" section is not a list of mutations (or variants), it is a list of disease. The variant is the actual nucleotide change.  Done Reworded to " A list of genes in which variants have associated with short QT syndrome..."
• Do the different underlying genetic causes present with different clinical findings? Or varying penetrance? I don't think so but will check
• Images all look good. I am of the opinion that the dominant / recessive images are overused and swamp articles where they only play a minor role, particularly in the context of incomplete penetrance or variable expressivity. I won't hold anything up for this personal preference though.  Done You're probably right. I have removed it.
• There are no licensing or tagging issues for the images.
• "In contrast to the normal rhythm of the heart in which smooth waves of electrical activity pass regularly through the cardiac muscle, these arrhythmias take the form of disorganised chaotic electrical activation known as fibrillation spiraling through the cardiac muscle in a mass of broken wavelets." this sentence is a handful. can it be broken up or explained more concisely?  Done I have split this sentence up and reworded it.

These are come initial thoughts, I will come back when i have some more time to review sources. Canada Hky (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Canada Hky, I have addressed your first set of points - all sensible suggestions that I should have spotted. I should have plenty of time over the next couple of nights to respond to any further comments but time may become shorter after that.

Thank you for addressing my comments. I made a few tiny tweaks, one to the order of an inline citation (I like them in order), and a minor phrasing change. The sources all look good. Most are primarily from appropriate secondary sources, with primary sources being included appropriately for dates and initial reports.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

After making a few minor changes myself, and seeing all my suggestions appropriately addressed - I believe this article meets GA criteria. Please see below for the point by point review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   appropriately referenced. No copyvio identified. Nicely sourced, and the article reflects the sources accurately.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is a very nicely defined article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are appropriately captioned and used.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Thank you for your collaboration with this article, and for the contribution in getting a medical article up to GA status! Canada Hky (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup

I did some MOS cleanup on the article (MOS:DASH, spaces at refs, etc). One note: In section Medication, antiarrhythmic agents are listed as class Ia and class 1c (the former has a Roman numeral I and the latter an Arabic numeral 1). These should be in the same format, whichever is appropriate and consistent with sources. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)