Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Huntington's disease/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 00:39, 5 August 2009 [1].

Huntington's disease

Nominator(s): Garrondo (talk) and L∴V (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a great medical article covering all the main topics of this important disease. The article has been greatly improved in the last year and I believe it deserves to be considered a FA. Its strongest point is possibly the high quality of the sources used, but prose has also been extensively reviewed by several editors. Garrondo (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Materialscientist

  • Figure captions: neuron pictures need length scales or length indication in the caption (image width ...).
    tomography image of xxx showing aspiration pneumonia, a common cause of death in HD" where xxx is lung or whatever (too many abbreviations, and you can't show an illness pneumonea on a picture). Should it be "from HD" instead of "in HD" ? That caption needs expansion explaining what is actually shown. Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I do not understand what do you mean with length scales.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely right on your point of the putamen image. However I do not know how to modify svg images. For the moment I have changed caption to "shown in purple and orange".--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lung image: caption changed. I have left "in HD", since it is not directly produced by the disease: the disease produces swallowing problems that may or may not lead to pneumonia.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Length scale is a calibrated bar on the image with a tag, such as "0.5 mm". If its too much work to add it, just say (image width 2 mm) in caption, or so. I can edit File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg and change color as you wish, but can not save the result in SVG. Can save in PNG (or other formats), which as I understand is similar to SVG. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scale comment will be hard to address but I'll try to contact the authors of the image. Regarding the image change I suppose there will be no problem to change the pink part to the same color of the brain and leave only coloured the striatum, and then save it in png; nevertheless right now I believe it is clear which part is the striatum.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed Dr FinkBeiner, he has been very helpful and prompt with the image, but may take a few days ... L∴V 22:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer is it's 1 micron / pixel - the nucleus of central neuron is about 15 microns, so maybe a 100 micron scale at the side / bottom , and whether to call them microns, micrometers, or µm ? L∴V 17:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, colors are fine now, and I would keep them for consistency with the original figure file explanation. Pneumonia is not explained in the caption (non-specialist like me would never guess where to look at that image). Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of explanation are you thinking of? I am no expert either so we could maybe ask in the medicine project for a better explanation of the image.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where and what is "pneumonia" (like "fine gray grains in the center indicate ..") BTW, the image is proposed for deletion, which needs to be addressed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is proposed for deletion, in the GA proccess reviewer said it did not add much, and it is hard to address your comments I have decided to eliminate it as the simpler solution.--Garrondo (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to change them.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have given all author names the same format.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the comma, separating the first and last name, varies. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is fixed now. Give me specific examples if otherwise please.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style: Hungtintin is either capitalized or not.
It was decided in talk page of the article to capitalize the gene but not the protein.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then this should be unified with Huntingtin article. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from SandyGeorgia (Talk)
  • While only briefing checking the article to make sure the significance of the Venezuelan work was included (it was!), I found multiple instances of strange use of semicolons, and a copyedit problem, suggesting a copyedit needed (a foundation cannot have a daughter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you knew of the Venezuelan project and that it is covered acceptably! I think I have addressed the semicolons, further copyediting still requred, I suspect. L∴V 00:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the Nancy Wexler / Foundation a little less ambiguous. L∴V 18:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alt text, phew that's a tricky one ! L∴V 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was quick! You missed the image in History, though. Eubulides (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops missed adding the alt= tag! L∴V 15:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment ...7 per 100,000 people, but is relatively lower in the rest of the world, e.g. 1 per 1,000,000 people of Asian and African descent - better is ...70 per 1,000,000 people, but is lower in the rest of the world, e.g. 1 per 1,000,000 people of Asian and African descent - this makes the difference clearer, and "relatively" is unneeded since you are talking rates, not absolute numbers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have applied. L∴V 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the references, you have a mixture of dmy, mdy and ymd date formats (current refs #89 & #96, for example). You should use one style consistently throughout the references for dates of publication and access. Where references have a PMID, the day and month of publication add no real information. Have you considered simply using year of publication for those cases? --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated the month parameter in those journal references where it appeared. I have also fixed a few other references. I believe its done.--Garrondo (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all done, with the possible exception of current ref #92, which has a PMC ID (and therefore has a guaranteed stable link to the full text) - I personally wouldn't bother with the accessdate there, as it's never going to be used. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you for your review (and to all other reviewers). I have eliminated the access date of ref 92.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the disclaimer that I'm a member of WP:WikiProject Medicine, although not associated with this article. I believe it meets the standard of Wikipedia's best articles. --RexxS (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 67 (HDA research news...) is lacking a publisher.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added Huntington's Disease Association-United Kingdom as publisher. Also added lacking date of website (2009) for the same reference.Thanks for pointing it out.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in terms of content I did the GA review of this article, and went over the content and references pretty thoroughly. I won't vouch for every tiny detail, but I believe that in this respect the article meets FA standards. I said at the time that I thought the prose style needed a major tune-up to reach the FA level, and I believe that is still the case, although it has definitely improved. A going-over by a skilled copy-editor would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Axl:-
  1. The pedigree chart in "Inheritance" uses the label "Wild Type". This term is appropriate for Drosophila and other laboratory experiments. I'm not sure that it's appropriate for human populations.
  2. The photo of the brain section in "Diagnosis" appears to have a copyright issue.
  3. That photo claims to show dilated ventricles. I cannot even see the ventricle on the left side of the picture. I can just about see the ventricle on the right side of the picture. [I don't actually know which is left and which is right because the orientation of the section has not been explicitly stated.]
  4. From "Diagnosis": "the considered implications and relevance of having a confirmed diagnosis mean that less than 5% of individuals choose to do so". Which individuals? Those offered the test? All patients with Huntington's disease?
  5. The section "Diagnosis", subsection "Genetic" has a graph captioned "Expression pattern of the Huntingtin gene". Even when viewing the graph separately, I can barely make out the names on the x-axis. Is it "X72 T B Lymphoblasts" with the highest rating? What is the significance of this? The y-axis is numbered, but with no indication of the meaning. The graph itself does not appear to correlate with any information in the section.
  6. From "Society and culture", subsection "Ethics": "There is greater acceptance opposing permitting testing until individuals are cognitively mature". What does this mean?

Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree, 'unaffected' would be in keeping with 'affected male' etc. but not completely sure if affected/unaffected is the correct term to use either.L∴V 09:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the image, also dropping the generation numerals which I believe were unecessary. L∴V 23:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. & 3. There is a possiblity of using the image here http://www.radpod.org/2007/05/01/huntingtons-disease/, it comes from a site that is sympathetic wo WP would this be a better replacement? L∴V 10:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image actually from radiopedia (http://radiopaedia.org/imagesets/huntington) is on its way - as soon as its owner gets time to upload it. L∴V 15:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image replaced, thanks to Frank! L∴V 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. It's individuals 'at-risk' but I'll edit later to avoid those annoying 'edit conflicts'. L∴V 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thanks to Axl for his ce and comments of the article. Regarding the image: it was me who uploaded the images inton WP-commons, since I had not completely understood the disclaimer, and only today I have received an email telling me there was a possible problem with it. Reviewing the disclaimer it is true that the image may be under copyright. On the other hand the image proposed by Lee is also not suitable for wikipedia commons; since it says that it can not be used for commercial pourpouses in the lincence. I'll eliminate the article image for the moment . I'll look at the other comments later.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed comments 4 and 6. 6 changed to: There is consensus opposing testing individuals that are not considered cognitively mature, although there are defendants of a parent's right to make the decision.--Garrondo (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5 I guess it is a bit specialist for the article and doesn't quite fit. L∴V 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6 (see point 4)

Comments. I have initiated a line-by-line prose review on the talk page. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments by Axl

Thanks to Garrondo and Leevanjackson for addressing my points. The adjustment to the pedigree chart has now created a different font style for the unaffected people. Perhaps you could change the affected label, so as to make the style consistent? The new MRI image of the brain is much better. I have adjusted the caption. This diagram of the normal brain may help you to see how the lateral ventricles have enlarged, the caudate nuclei have atrophied, and the cortical matter has also atrophied:-

Thankyou Axl, I have uploaded next version with the same fonts - well spotted! Do you think we should put the above image in as a reference - I agree it would help - but does it look too different for comparisons sake? L∴V 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lee, in one of the links you provided for the image (the first one) explains the image. It says: "Radiologically the heads of caudate are atrophied with enlargement of the frontal horns, along with a more generalised cortical atrophy." I think we should add the link as a ref for the radiologic changes (to explain we are not the ones saying the changes). I would not add the other image. Only my opinion.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point have added page as a ref. L∴V 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point 4, are these individuals "at risk" because of their family history of HD?

There is a chance of another image showing healthy brain on its way - as time permits.L∴V 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ref does not explicitely say it, but in 99 percent of cases I would say it is a yes. Genetic testing would also only be used in those cases when even without a family history there is symptoms that indicate the possibility of suffering the disease.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point 5, would you consider removing the graph "Expression pattern of the Huntingtin gene"?

Done (I was doing it as you added your comments :-).--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment more of a placeholder really - I will have a look and massage straightforward prose fixes. Please revert if you feel I have inadvertently changed meaning, and I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the alternate names Huntington disease, Huntington's chorea, chorea major, in the lead. Yes Huntington's chorea was a common alternative until recent years, but the other two are highly uncommon or archaic (I have never seen it as huntington without the 's), and as such I wonder whether they should be instead discussed in some naming section within the article proper (which they aren't now). Technically all material in lead should be within article proper.
I tend to agree with you, if someone has come from a redirect it will be stated at the top, the list isn't complete either, note Huntington without out the possesive 's is in anticipation of all diseases to be stripped of this which seems to be a growing consensus. L∴V 12:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated chorea major and huntington disease.--Garrondo (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Physical symptoms can begin... - is not "Physical" redundant here?
Have refactored sentence to 'Symptoms can begin at any age, with physical symptoms being noticed first, most commonly this occurs between 35 and 44 years of age.' L∴V 12:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might be tricky, having got sidetracked on wikicommons categorising mri scans have been unable to find one suitable as yet, I will try asking the provider of the current one, but I sense this might be another protracted image hunt.. L∴V 14:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a chance of another image showing healthy brain is on its way - as time permits.L∴V 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support This article is quite well-written. I like how most of the sections begin with an "easy" version of the material and then progress to a more detailed explanation. I think this makes the information quite accessible to various levels of readership. I have a few questions and suggestions:
  • Chorea may be initially exhibited as general restlessness, small unintentionally initiated or uncompleted motions, incoordination, or slowed saccadic eye movements. - Is "incoordination" a medical term? I had to look up this word to make sure it was real. :)
Changed to 'lack of coordination' although I seem to remember some toing and throwing about the exact phrase in the past. L∴V 14:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Huntington's disease mutation is genetically dominant, and is not sex-linked. The change in length of the repeated section can be influenced by the gender of the parent it is inherited from. - I think this might confuse people unfamiliar with genetics. One sentence says "not sex-linked" and the next says "can be influenced by the gender of the parent". As these two sentences come from the introductory paragraph to "Genetics", which summarizes the material for readers not interested in or unable to grasp the specifics presented later, I think it is important to present this as clearly as possible.
Have expanded and reworded to: 'The Huntington's disease mutation is genetically dominant, because either of a persons HTT genes being mutated causes the disease. It is not inherited according to gender, but the length of the repeated section of the gene, and hence it's severity, can be influenced by the gender of the affected parent.' L∴V 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. (I've fixed the apostrophe problems.)
talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • In these models, HTT has been shown to have several functions: it is important for embryonic development, its absence being related to embryonic death; acting as an anti-apoptotic agent preventing programmed cell death; controlling the production of brain derived neurotrophic factor, a protein which protects neurons and regulates the neurogenesis of new ones; facilitating vesicular transport and synaptic transmission; and controlling neuronal gene transcription. - This sentence is a bit too long to follow.
  • Although the initial motivation for having a pre-symptomatic test is strong, the considered implications and relevance of having a confirmed diagnosis mean that less than 5% of individuals at risk of having HD choose to do so. - What are the implications? Could we explain this a little more in the opening section?
  • How far the disease has progressed can be measured using the unified Huntington's disease rating scale which provides an overall rating system based on motor, behavioral, cognitive, and functional assessments, but is primarily used for clinical trials. - I find the "but is primarily used for clinical trials" part of the sentence confusing. Why is this essential to mention? To me, it just interrupted the flow of the sentences.
  • The age of onset decreases, and the rate of progression of symptoms increases, with the number of CAG repeats. - Perhaps you could remind the reader what "CAG repeats" are?
  • For example a woman, named Elizabeth Knap, was judged in the Salem witch trials although she probably suffered from HD. - Instead of saying "judged", could we a bit more specific about what happened?
  • Davenport's interested was created by his college friend Smith Ely Jelliffe, who was intrigued by the strong inheritance pattern of the disease - Something is amiss in this sentence.
  • Some countries' organizations have agreed not to use this information. - This sentence is a bit vague and doesn't flow very well with the rest of the paragraph.
  • Abortion after prenatal genetic testing with positive results and preimplantation genetic diagnosis in order to ensure that the disorder is not passed on are not free of ethical concerns. - This is a tortured sentence.
  • The "Media depictions" section is basically a prose list. Perhaps the link
    List of Huntington's disease media depictions
    could be made a "See also" link at the top of the section and the section deleted?
  • "Until the 19th century Huntington's disease was grouped with numerous movement disorders. As with many of these disorders, people with the condition may have been persecuted as witches or thought to be possessed by spirits, and shunned or exiled by society." - This is sourced to a document from this website, which is prepared by faculty and undergraduates. That part of this site is written by undergraduates is a bit concerning. I would also note that the site says "We emphasize that we are not medical professionals" and that the faculty adviser is an anthropologist.
  • I have changed it according to the new ref to: Historians have traditionally said that HD sufferers may have been persecuted as witches or thought to be possessed by spirits, and shunned or exiled by society before the 19th century. A well-known case is that of Elizabeth Knapp, who probably suffered from HD; in 1671 she was accused of witchcraft in Groton, New Hampshire, but not condemned. However these may not have been the case, at least in some places. Not all communities were so ignorant, as the family that prompted George Huntington's description were accepted by their local community, working all their lives until physically unable. Some tweaking would be great.--Garrondo (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB is used as a reference to demonstrate that HD is mentioned in particular movies. It is not a reliable source. I would suggest finding a source that lists important HD-related media instead. (That is, if you intend to keep this section.)

I look forward to supporting this article soon.

talk) 05:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Thankyou for edits and pointers, Awadewit, I am mostly working through comments chronologically ... I have incorporated some of the sentence on guidlines you pointed out was duplicate - but trimmed excess. Very pleased you found the intros gentle - it's been tricky striking the correct balance! L∴V 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last remaining issue for me is the lead. I've placed an alternate version we can discuss on the article talk page. I think the lead needs to be simplified a bit.
talk) 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This is now done.
talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Quick comment (hopefully I'll get time to do more later): What is the image in the infobox? Maybe the caption should say "An artist's rendering of..." or "An electron micrograph of..." delldot ∇. 07:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, article has progressed quite some since your original GA review pointed the way! From the ref is 'A montage of three images, using a specially modified microscope' which I have added. L∴V 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it should be added in the close up image too.--Garrondo (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it myself.--Garrondo (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! delldot ∇. 22:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you are using the first citation an incredible amount. For a 10 page article, this is rather surprising. Some of these uses are adding the citation where there are multiple citations already or using it multiple times back to back, as in the last paragraph or the second paragraph of "Genetic". You can condense instances of that together. Please do, as the over use of the references really distracts from the ability to read the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, first paragraph of "Inheritance" lacks a citation covering the last sentences. By the way, is there a reason why the first source is favored over all of the other sources? Whole sections are mostly reliant on that source. Also, the layout of the section is a little confusing. You have mostly descriptions of the disease, then history of where it appears, then society, then where research is going? There doesn't seem to be any real unity. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lancet article: There are practical and reliable sourcing issues. Firstly is a very comprenhensive (it covers most aspects of the disease), very recent review (2007) from a very high quality journal (lancet), which makes it perfect for our article per
WP:MEDRS. Non of the other used references has these same thing. On the practical side its structure is quite similar to that of WP article so it is much easier to find a reference when you search for it. Finally when I came here a few months ago there were many sections almost completely unreferenced or referenced to primary articles, but mostly correct. When I found these review and I saw that it covered most aspects of the disease I decided to use it as the main ref of the article to check for any unreferenced statement and with it we were capable of eliminating almost 50 primary articles. As I have already said I believe that referencing each sentence makes it really harder for anybody to insert any information not backed up by sources and I really believe that such advantage really outweights the distractibility issue; specially for a possible FA article. I would feel that a reduction in the citation style would be against the article verifiability.--Garrondo (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe that when you say also, the layout of the section is a little confusing you mean the lay out of the article. Am I correct? If it is the case it is the recommended lay out for disease articles per
WP:MEDMOS. All recent disease FA had the same structure. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Regarding ref on inheritance: I would say it is a basic knowledge, but we could search for a basic biology textbook. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now detailed the lancet references so they include the exact page - this splits the previously used reference up into 10 seperate ones, making for easier reading and checking. The lancet review is an ideal source - it may have been loosely based on the WP HD article at the time, so has a similar flow - but with far more detail and thorough referencing, there are other references but few are free or as general e.g. the Harper/Bates Oxford Monographs book, (which is about $150) so it is best to find one reference that covers most of the ground reliably. L∴V 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All current reported links now disambiguated, thanks. L∴V 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the application for FA status. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great ! - thankyou - and cheers for the edits and pointers you contributed :) Just some quick notes though; awadewit has her final point - a more accessible lead that is to be pasted (this may include moving refs from lead - they are currently there to keep a sensible order), Cryptic c62, I suspect, will have a few more copyed suggestions and their is possibility of a MRI scan of a healthy brain somewhere betwixt radiopedia and here to be added. L∴V 17:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to deal with those refs at the end of the lead. There are now 11 lined up. They should be placed at the appropriate place in the article.
talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes (either within the article, or at the appropriate place in the lead. As it stands now, unclear why 11 citations at end of lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they were added there because they were the most general refs on the disease; the ones that covered almost every topic. Nevertheless I have moved them to their first appearance. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – a good article that appears to satisfy the FA criteria. The only area where I really tripped over the jargon was in the first paragraph of the Huntington's disease#Macroscopic changes due to mHTT section, but I can live with that. There are a number of red links that all look to be notable topics, so I don't have a problem there. The citations appear okay, but could perhaps be further refined as a nit-picking exercise. Otherwise a nice piece of work. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Huntington%27s_disease/archive1&oldid=1088118300"