Talk:FOXG1 syndrome

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good to see someone working on the rarer genetic diseases. I would recommend possibly rewording some of the signs and symptoms as I'm not sure the current format is super helpful.

IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for reviewing the page that I’ve created.

Also, could you please give me some recommendations about making page better? @IntentionallyDense NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NotCarlJohnson1992 The Pathophysiology section is a bit technical (see WP:MTAU for some guidance here) and I don't think having a huge list of symptoms and diagnostic criteria is super helpful. [1] and especially [2] may be more helpful for creating the symptoms section. [3] this article may help with the diagnosis section. Best of luck! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 15:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can I revert one edit? I would like to return subheadings in pathophysiology section. NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)@IntentionallyDense[reply]

It may be easier to just re-add them as reverting would revert the addition of wikilinks. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant re-adding them. Thank you again! @IntentionallyDense NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've listened to your recommendations, and edited the article about this disorder. Unfourtenately, I tried my best to make pathophysiology section much less technical (also I added photo of the FOXG1 mechanism, and paraphrased some of the words, also i've added explanation to some terms to make it much easier to understand), but it still looks kinda technical. @IntentionallyDense NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does this article falls into B-class category now? NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about we go over the Wikipedia:Content assessment for a B class article together?

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited - Note that I haven't checked all the sources in detail but they look pretty good except for this [4] source which is from a WP:PREDATORY journal (see WP:CITEWATCH).
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. - I haven't really done a deep dive on this topic but considering it is a pretty long article for a rare genetic condition I would say it probably meets this criteria
The article has a defined structure. - This one definitely is being met here. While this isn't required, I see that you're really passionate about improving this article so my only suggestions here would be to make the subheadings not have title case (so changing Cortical Stem Cell Growth to Cortical stem cell growth and checking out MOS:LAYOUT regarding guidance on the length of paragraphs.
The article is reasonably well-written - There is some work that could be done with the prose but I can understand what you are saying so I would say this criteria is met
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. - This criteria is met
The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. - The Pathophysiology section is still a little bit technical in my opinion, but this is a very tricky area that even the most experienced editors struggle with. I would suggest seeing if you could add in some wikilinks and explain things in a more simplified way. For example instead of Loss of FOXG1 results in a lengthened cell cycle and premature exit of neural stem cells. to something along the lines of Loss of FOXG1 results in a longer cell cycle and neural stem cells leave the cell cycle too early, leading to fewer new brain cells being made.

Overall you've done a lot of great work with this article and I'm really happy to see how dedicated you are to improving this page. If you really want to get this to B class then I'd recommend trying to replace that one citation and trying to further simplify the article a tad. Keep up the great work! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will try my best to make pathophysiology section much easier to understand and remove that one source. NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I’ve changed that source to another one, and I will work on simplifying the pathophysiology section. Thank you! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a good news! I rephrased some of the words in the pathophysiology section and added explanations of the terms. @IntentionallyDense NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the rating to reflect your recent changes, Keep up the great work! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 15:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Next time, I will make sure to write articles less technically but still in an informative way. NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]