Talk:Tetrasomy X

Title

Should this page be named Tetrasomy X instead of "48, XXXX" since it is more commonly referred to as the former and also, how would you actually pronounce Forty-eight comma space ex ex ex ex? 198.6.46.11 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence

In terms of intelligence, clinical findings suggest that IQ decreases 10 to 15 points per extra X chromosome. Consequently, the average IQ scores of tetrasomy X patients are between 70 and 80.

This has been uncited in the articles for more than two years now. This can be interpreted to argue that women are less intelligent than men. I would just fix that issue except that I'm not confident that any of the rest of this is true. On top of all that, there are only 60 tetrasomy X cases on record and fewer pentasomy X. If someone can come back with a citation, please add this back. Until then, lets leave this out. —mako๛ 04:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• The way it's put in the article was pretty inaccurate, but this is generally accepted as the 'rule of thumb' that an extra X or Y chromosome will result in an IQ drop of somewhere around 10 points. I do have a citation, though I'm not sure how to cite it. Sticking this back in. Stealthy (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Longer and taller

"The majority have also been reported as being longer and taller." Than what? -Uusijani (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested page protection

I requested that this page be partially protected because of multiple abusive IPs changing the article with nonsense information randomly. Cocoaguy ここがいい 05:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Cleft lip image reasoning?

A picture of a child who does not have Tetrasomy X but has a cleft lip is the main picture on the tetrasomy X page? What sense does that make? Also, what is the source on the cleft lip? Original research I know, but I've been aware of and following diagnoses of Tetrasomy X for more than a decade and I have never heard of anyone having a cleft lip. Is this vandalism residue? 198.6.33.13 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the image is misplaced on this article and have removed it. Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2019

We should add the following sentence:

"In terms of intelligence, clinical findings suggest that IQ decreases 10 to 15 points per extra X chromosome. Consequently, the average IQ scores of tetrasomy X patients are between 70 and 80."

I have a source for that claim, is trustworthy since is from a foundation dedicated to chromosome disorders, this is the source: https://www.rarechromo.org/media/information/Chromosome_X/Tetrasomy_X%20FTNW.pdf TheGreatJack (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. That's a misrepresentation of the source. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That's literally what's said in the source, could you tell what's exactly a "misrepresentation"?, we could always add the part: "However, this may actually paint too negative a picture, as those with little or no learning difficulty may never come to the attention of doctors or be diagnosed." if that's your concern(The IQ part is true or atleast not refuted in the source, is just that can make some confusion, but if we clarify that should be ok anyway).

Still  Not done. It's a misrepresentation because the source makes no mention of such "clinical findings", calling it merely a "rule of thumb" instead. Moreover, as you even point out, the source goes on to question this rule of thumb due to biased sampling. More importantly though, this is a pamphlet from a charitable organization, and I'm not sure if we should use it as a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. I should have mentioned that originally, and I apologize for missing it, but I wasn't thinking along those line when I took a quick look and saw what I felt to be the misrepresentation I mentioned above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 03:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello I will be reviewing this article. As usual, comments will be made soon. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 03:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• All claims are cited
• All images are sourced properly
• It would be better if this article had more images, but the ones currently are minimally sufficient for GA.
• Earwig copyvio report came back clean.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• This article meets all basic criteria, so I will be promoting it. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 04:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Karyotype of tetrasomy X

• ... that when the first woman diagnosed with tetrasomy X (chromosomes pictured) was followed up 26 years later, she had gone from residence in an institution to living freely with her sister? Source: Berg JM, Karlinsky H, Korossy M, Pakula Z (1988). "Twenty-six years later: a woman with tetra-X chromosomes". Journal of Mental Deficiency Research. 32 (1): 67–74. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.1988.tb01389.x. PMID 3361607.

• Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Paul Jackson (bassist)
• Comment: Couple of points:
  • "Happily" is not explicitly called in-article (wrong formality register for an article, imo) but fairly clear from the source; it's a bit of a long hook and I can't think of another way to get across the whole 'life improvement' concept without going way over the character limit (advice is welcome)
  • 'Chromosomes pictured' is, I think, an awkward wording, but the formal term ('karyotype') is definitely going to be unclear to most readers -- again, advice welcome on what to do here

Improved to Good Article status by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 12:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC).

• The article is long enough and new enough. I assume good faith on the references that I can't access. A QPQ has been completed. The hook and image are both fine. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion, if "happily" isn't in the article or explicit in the source: "freely" might be easily verifiable/obvious (the literal information it conveys is that she was not in an institution) and also have the right connotation. — Bilorv (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Good suggestion, I've edited the hook accordingly. Vaticidalprophet 00:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

what did you people do, you didn't even settle on a hook. it should definitely be "after", rather than "instead", besides, neither the article or the hook specifies what kind of institution it was. 37.225.38.158 (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Treatment

article should have 1)treatment section per[1], 2) also lede could be better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)