Talk:XX male syndrome

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tbechar (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bcouls2. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MicheleRose97, Rhawley10, Mindiolam (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Callystahansen, Kking1110, Halleripon.

OMIM description of the syndrome

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=278850

They should test MTF transgender people and see if they have XX male syndrome. That would explain quite a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not withstanding that many MTFs are masculine enough to be somewhat noticable without facial surgery, figure-disguising clothes, training in altered movements/mannerisms/speech etc? 193.63.174.10 (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Many are and many aren’t. — Chameleon 10:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

X-inactivation?

Reading this made me wonder if one of the X chromosomes is randomly deactivated in each cell, as in XX females. 130.71.254.49 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on XX male syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091012041318/http://www.healthline.com:80/galecontent/xx-male-syndrome to http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/xx-male-syndrome

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing this Article for Class

I have been looking this article over and have some additions and changes I'd like to make. I'd like to expand on how the two X chromosomes work and explore if duplicate X genes are inactivated, describe how sexual differentiation occurs with respect to this syndrome, explain how it effects puberty, expand on the presentation section to give a more detailed overview, differentiate between XX male syndrome SRY-positive and SRY-negative, and fix the citations because it is word-for-word from an article. I also think additional methods could be added for XX Male Syndrome detection.

This is a list of relevant articles that will be useful in making the above changes:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890225/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890225/ http://cms.galenos.com.tr/FileIssue/8/238/article/46-48-eng.pdf http://www.jfma-online.com/article/S0929-6646(12)00175-1/fulltext

Tbechar (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tbechar, I am your peer reviewer. I'm happy to report that your article is well organized and written in the appropriate neutral tone. Images are used effectively and your links between articles seem to be working. For improvement I would suggest manually editing reference 4, in your reference section, as it has been flagged for a missing date. I ran into the same problem and was able to manually input date information I knew about the article and it resolved the conflict. Furthermore, your clinical diagnosis section seems a bit disjointed and hard to follow, some transitions ( not of the A -> G variety ;)) might help it flow better. Otherwise, your article is solid! Nice work! P.s sorry for the genetics dad joke. Good luck! Bcouls2 (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I reworded some sentences in the first paragraph to improve the article's readability and grammar. Rhawley10 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Emma Hall's Peer Review

I think the lead section is done incredibly well. It is succinct and give the reader a clear picture of what XX male syndrome is without being overwhelming with detail. The lead is great if you're looking for general information on the subject. Each section is well thought out and organized. I felt that when I was reading the article, whenever a question arose, the article did a good job of explaining the material and answered my questions. I think that it would be good to add more information (if there is any) into the Xg gene section in order to make it more clear. The structure of the diagnosis section is written well and is very clear.

Overall very clear and well written!

143.109.169.30 (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Emma Hall's Peer Review

I think the lead section is done incredibly well. It is succinct and give the reader a clear picture of what XX male syndrome is without being overwhelming with detail. The lead is great if you're looking for general information on the subject. Each section is well thought out and organized. I felt that when I was reading the article, whenever a question arose, the article did a good job of explaining the material and answered my questions. I think that it would be good to add more information (if there is any) into the Xg gene section in order to make it more clear. The structure of the diagnosis section is written well and is very clear.

Overall very clear and well written!

Halleripon (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Katie's Peer Review

Lead Section: First two paragraphs are a great synopsis of the article and give clear introduction into your topic. I think you did a great job with the lead section! I do not understand why the final sentence is included and it is not cited, so it needs to be important to the whole article and cited appropriately or I would remove it.

Clear Structure: The organization works well for the article. It is easy to follow and separated well. The sections are also separated into logical sub-headings that help the reader identify where information will be.

Balanced Coverage: I do not think there is any section that is lacking information. There is good coverage in each section with sources to support the information. 
The only section where I could see adding some information would be about the types of treatment (describe each in more depth, examples from the symptoms?).

Neutral Content: There does not appear to be any bias in the article. The information is presented in a clear way without being persuasive.

Reliable Sources: All of the sources appear to be peer reviewed journals. Quite a few are reviews, but there are some case studies, which are less useful for Wikipedia. However, because the disorder is rare, I think it is acceptable to use these sources.

Big Picture: You did a great job with the organization of this article. My main suggestion would be to balance out the treatment section with examples. Otherwise, the article reads well and is a great resource.

Kking1110 (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Callysta's Peer Review

I feel that the lead section does a very good job of summarizing your article. Make sure that you include a citation for the last statement, although it feels like a very sudden change in topic and does not have much of an explanation

The overall structure of your article flows well and is organized in an efficient manner that allows your readers to easily find any specific information they are looking for on the topic. The use of different subject headers is nice as it helps to break up the information better.

All content takes a neutral tone, which is good.

There are several sections that I feel lack adequate amounts of sources, such as "SRY-positive" and "Treatment". Aside from that, your sources look good and seem to come from reliable journals/places.

I feel that your article is very well written, you may want to look at further explaining those sections where you have provided less information and sources to really get the idea across about XX Male Syndrome. Again, I really liked the use of subject headers to clearly organize the information. I feel that the most important thing that you can work on would be to bring in more sources and provide more of an explanation of the images embedded on the page.

Callystahansen (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Callysta Hansen

XX male syndrome do not have a female genotype

I recently added an edit that fixed a problem that is now back in the article after a revert. XX male syndrome individuals do not have a "female genotype", it is an incorrect statement. You will find no scholarly paper that describes them that way because most XX male syndrome individuals are SRY+ve. It is correct to say that XX male individuals have an 46 XX karyotype (I originally used "XX karyotype", which is less specific). This is the convention is easily found in scholarly literature and covers SRY+ve and SRY-ve cases.Maneesh (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Page 91 of this book appears to do that, but I think you're right overall: it's more typical to describe it as a karotype result, because it's about the visual appearance of the chromosome, not the actual genetic content. There is probably some complicated way of writing out the name of the chromosome to indicate that it's actually most of an X plus most of a Y, which looks almost like a slightly long X chromosome.

Also, this condition is seen in horses, which should be mentioned in the article. I think ==Other animals== is the typical section heading for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

concur w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to this report regarding horses, it should *not* be included in this article. This article should focus on the ostensibly human condition that is described in sources that are exclusively from a human clinical perspective with notions of diagnosis/treatment etc.; we know very little about any vague analogy in other animals. A link to 'intersexuality in other organisms' might be fine but not detailed descriptions. A page like cancer#Other animals makes sense since cancer is a much more general condition of animal cells as compared to the organism level XX male syndrome.Maneesh (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Support 2019 merge proposal to merge 46,XX testicular disorders of sex development; a synonym best merged to the longer-standing article. Any differences between the synonyms can be discussed on one page. Klbrain (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Will alert WP:Med to this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)