The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this featured article for review because its main contributor, User:Eubulides, left Wikipedia ten years ago and the article has not been updated significantly since. I am the second contributor, but my contributions were mostly keeping the citations, MOS issues, etc clean, and I have not significantly contributed for more than five years. I have no interest in continuing to maintain the article. No one else has taken on this article, and it is now considerably out of date. I have listed numerous reviews on the talk page that should have been incorporated long ago, and there are many more. The problems with datedness can be seen everywhere, but the Epidemiology section provides the best example. Perusing the few samples of new reviews I listed on talk gives an idea of the amount of update needed. The majority of the article is cited to sources well over ten years old, as no one has kept the article updated since Eubulides left. The talk page notification resulted in zero edits, and zero talk response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Research on this condition is ongoing meaning that a dated article cannot satisfy comprehensiveness requirement. I am also surprised by how short it is. Although summary style is used, some sections could stand to go into more detail. buidhe 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, please see FAR instructions, Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying problems and determining if someone is willing/able to work on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The condition has been merged into autism spectrum disorder per the APA. Would need to look to see were the ICD are at with things. And update will require a large amount of work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by John M Wolfson
I'm surprised at the amount of LEADCITEs. They're certainly not prohibited by any guideline, but modern standard practice in FAs is to not use them.
Speaking of citations, there are a couple of paragraphs that end in uncited sentences. I have marked them with CN tags as needed.
The "Classification" section might stand to be expanded per DocJames; I'm also not sure it ought to be the first section, but I can go either way with that.
The "Causes" and "Mechanism" sections should be merged.
Usually I would keep the causes and mechanisms separate. Makes it easier for people to find what they are looking for and maintain due weight. This is an incredibly controversial topic and thus references are even more important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed both of your cn tags. One was an off-topic addition which I removed. The other resulted from paragraphing that chopped one sentence from its source. Both addressed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like ICD-11 is going to rename Asperger syndrome to "Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and with mild or no impairment of functional language". Nevertheless, this is too cumbersome and "Asperger syndrome" is likely to remain the de facto name.
While I suspect that the relevance of these older sources hasn't changed much, the article would really benefit from the scrutiny of an editor interested in Asperger syndrome, to go through it and update the sourcing as much as possible. (I realise that SandyGeorgia has already tried to find a suitable editor.) Axl¤[Talk] 13:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asperger syndrome, with a daily average of more than 10,000 hits, is among the medicine project's most popular pages, and yet no one at that project appears willing or able to undertake to update this article, which will fall into complete disrepair if it is defeatured. In the almost month since the FAR talk page notice was given, there have been two edits by John M Wolfson, and four edits by Axl; not even a minimum attempt by medicine project members to update.
The problems with comprehensiveness and the need for an update are outlined on talk and on this FAR page, and updating the article would actually not be at all difficult, and yet, no one appears willing to take on the work. I am unable and uninterested in continuing to maintain this article, as working on the body of the article with a dreadful lead that does not reflect best practice for Featured articles holds no interest for me. Considering that most readers will not get past the lead, it should be a compelling and well written introduction to the subject; it is not. Examining the short, choppy, outdated, and overcited lead:
This is a basic definition, unlikely to be challenged, and does not require citation in the lead. The article is written in American English, but the first sentence has British English. Right up front, we should be telling the reader this is a sub-type of ASD. Forcing leads to a specific order (not in compliance with any guideline or policy) forces critical information to a later paragraph in the lead, unnecessarily. Right up front, we should be telling our readers that AS isn't what it once was: now it's a sub-type.
Because of the changing status of this diagnosis, it is helpful to cite this text, and yet, the text does not give the reader the information they need to know right up front. AS is a "disorder of uncertain validity", and the source does not characterize AS as "milder", it correctly states that AS "differs from autism primarily in the fact that there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development". That doesn't make it "milder", just different. Nor does the source say that language development and intelligence are "relatively normal"; it says there is no general delay or retardation. The attempt to shorten this concept has resulted in a loss of accuracy. Rather than using a 2015 source, the text could be more accurately updated to reflect PMID29167722, which states that effects on cognitive abilities need to be better researched. When recent sources tell us the condition is "characterized by major problems in social and nonverbal communication", the word "milder" seems inappropriate. The word "high functioning" (used in sources) seems better; dumbing down language results in loss of precision. (While I'm on that source, the article does not mention "One of the main problems in diagnosis of autism and AS is the late occurrence of some atypical behavioral and cognitive changes, like impairment of social communication or alteration in occurrence of puberty" and the importance of recognizing this for diagnosis and treatment. Nor does the article mention the high comorbidity with ADHD, or the high rate of schizophrenia among relatives, or the rate of bipolar.) PMID30736970 states that "cognitive development is not marked by an overall delay but by specific impairments in certain areas such as the executive functions".
Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and unusual use of language are common.[3][4] Signs usually begin before two years of age and typically last for a person's entire life.[1]
Even with the new categorization of AS, this statement is not in doubt and does not need to be cited.
This is not likely to be challenged, is common fact, and does not need to be cited in the lead. Overcitation of basic factoids results in choppy prose, where these three sentences on cause could be better combined, with one citation.
Should be mentioned early on. "People with these symptoms" refers back to ... what in this paragraph? That AS was removed from DSM is basic fact; not likely to be challenged, does not require citation.
There is no single treatment, and the effectiveness of particular interventions is supported by only limited data.[3]
Limited data supporting interventions cited to a 2006 source ?
Treatment is aimed at lowering obsessive or repetitive routines, and improving communication skills and physical clumsiness.[9] Interventions may include social skills training, cognitive behavioral therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy, parent training, and medications for associated problems, such as mood or anxiety.[9]
This is the first time the reader encounters the word obsessive, but it is unlinked, leaving confusion about possible OCD comorbidity versus OC traits; what exactly do we mean here? We are citing all of this to a 2007 source; nothing new since 2007?
Most children improve as they grow up, but social and communication difficulties usually persist.[10]
We are citing "most improve" to a 2009 source; still true?
Some researchers and people on the autism spectrum have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that autism spectrum disorder is a difference rather than a disease that must be treated or cured.[11][12]
This is cited to extremely old sources, and what does it have to do with the paragraph it is placed in ?
In 2015, Asperger's was estimated to affect 37.2 million people globally.[13]
No problem (although I am unsure if this data is current). (Noting here the absence of an WP:NBSP, and that a MOS review is needed throughout.)
Autism spectrum disorder affects males more often than females, and females are typically diagnosed at a later age.[14][15]
Standard stuff, does not require citation. How much more often, and how much later? It should not be hard to provide a few simple numbers here, using updated sources. (Noting while here that the citation does not use the same style used throughout the article, and that a check for consistent citation style throughout is needed.)
Unlikely to be challenged, does not require citation.
The modern conception of Asperger syndrome came into existence in 1981 and went through a period of popularization.[17][18][19]
Holy overcitation batman. All old sources, and not one of them reflects the current conception of AS, so the term "modern conception" is outdated.
It became a standardized diagnosis in the early 1990s.[20]
Obvious, does not require citation, but needs to be merged with the outdated statement in the previous sentence. Forcing text to conform to specific citations, rather than writing an overall summary of the article, results in this kind of disconnect.
This statement says absolutely nothing and the reader knows not to what it refers. This is the result of dumbing down and shortening sentences to the point of losing all meaning.
Places in the wrong spot, by forcing the lead to conform to a certain flow. This information belongs with the whole sub-type, recategorization of AS as part of ASD spectrum in the first paragraph, and it is not helpful to cite this to a 2006 source.
Partly because of this, the percentage of people affected is not firmly established.[3]
Dumbed down to the point of meaningless, and cited to a 2006 source.
So, overall the article needs an entire update, and the lead needs to be re-written in a logical flow that summarizes the overall well-known concepts. The overcited, outdated narrative in the lead, forced to a certain order that doesn't make sense or flow logically, needs to be reworked. Those who are able to update it are not going to work under conditions that force leads to be written in ways that do not reflect best FA practice. It is very sad that years of work by Eubulides on this article has been lost, as one of WPMED's top-viewed articles has fallen into disrepair. Unless the medicine project undertakes an update, I will !vote to Delist. There is still time to save this star, and I hope someone will undertake the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe would you like to revisit now? (BTW, I disagree with you on the length, which I think is just right.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Setting the length aside for now, I think you're otherwise mostly correct in your evaluation of the article. I also think we need a subject matter expert to look at high-functioning autism and see if they should be merged (especially with the removal from the DSM). In other words my delist endorsement still stands. buidhe 16:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asperger's and HFA are different concepts. Many people are both, but it is possible to have one but not the other. Also, Asperger's was once a formal diagnosis. HFA is an unofficial assessment. It matters for things like planning for the future (people considered LFA are more likely to be institutionalized), but it's not "a medical condition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And since recent reviews consider it a subset of HFA or autism, it is still a valid term/article-- the article just needs to reflect ICD and DSM correct usage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago I posted directly over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine about the issues the article is having with keeping its featured status. No takers yet... Shearonink (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean towards delist, given that it is not clear in places if the information in the article represents current thinking. DrKay (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. No large-scale meaningful improvements, none of the needed updates since the various notices have gone up. Makes me sad...I wish I could take it on at the present time but I can't - getting this article back to present FA standards is going to be a long-term project for someone (or someones). Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist outdated and makes oversimplified generalizations (i.e. "stereotyped and restricted patterns of behavior, activities, and interests" is a stereotype that might be featured in certain individuals with Asperger's, but not all as whoever inserted that seems to suggest, "A lack of demonstrated empathy affects aspects of communal living for persons with Asperger syndrome" downplays how there are times when people on the spectrum do understand how someone feels even if they aren't always sure what's appropriate to tell them). Perhaps the lack of more up-to-date citations led to overgeneralizations as not everyone with AS/autism was previously able to share their experiences and how they differ from others with the condition or other diagnoses within the austism spectrum. Needs extensive work that I unfortunately don't have the time or patience to carry out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can delist an article for accurately reflecting what the diagnostic criteria are, even if we don't agree with them; "stereotyped and restricted patterns of behavior, activities, and interests" are not opinion, stereotypes, or generalizations-- they are restating the criteria and reflecting the sources. Ditto for communal living. That not every person on the spectrum reflects the same degree of impairment does not negate what the diagnostic criteria are. If other work is needed, it is more helpful to accurately reflect it here, because the changes you suggest would not be grounded in policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that the use of outdated criteria/citations used could be why it appears to rely on certain associations without factoring in more nuances. As for other ways to improve the article, I would recommend including more pieces likethese featuring perspectives/experiences autistic people have shared for insight on what the condition is like for them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a possibility, but you haven't presented an example of that as your Delist rationale. For example, the very recent PMID30736970 (2019) still states that: "Asperger's syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder which is part of the large family of autism spectrum disorders. People with Asperger's syndrome have difficulties in social interactions, verbal and non-verbal communication, and may display behavioural oddities, with stereotypies and limited interests. They show no language delay and their cognitive development is not marked by an overall delay but by specific impairments in certain areas such as the executive functions." I don't believe the text you singled out would change if this article were updated. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I didn't give the best examples before (I might have to do some digging for something better and come back later with results), but I should point out that "may display" isn't the same thing as "will definitely display" and shouldn't be treated as such. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the ((featured article review)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
^ abcde"Autism Spectrum Disorder". National Institute of Mental Health. September 2015. Archived from the original on 12 March 2016. Retrieved 12 March 2016.
^Baskin JH, Sperber M, Price BH (2006). "Asperger syndrome revisited". Reviews in Neurological Diseases. 3 (1): 1–7. PMID16596080.
^Klauck SM (June 2006). "Genetics of autism spectrum disorder". European Journal of Human Genetics. 14 (6): 714–20. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201610. PMID16721407.
^"Asperger syndrome". Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center (GARD) – an NCATS Program. Retrieved 26 January 2019.
^"ICD-11". icd.who.int. Retrieved 12 February 2019.
^ abNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) (31 July 2007). "Asperger syndrome fact sheet". Archived from the original on 21 August 2007. Retrieved 24 August 2007. NIH Publication No. 05-5624.
^Clarke J, van Amerom G (2007). "'Surplus suffering': differences between organizational understandings of Asperger's syndrome and those people who claim the 'disorder'". Disability & Society. 22 (7): 761–76. doi:10.1080/09687590701659618.
^Baron-Cohen S (2002). "Is Asperger syndrome necessarily viewed as a disability?". Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl. 17 (3): 186–91. doi:10.1177/10883576020170030801. A preliminary, freely readable draft, with slightly different wording in the quoted text, is in: Baron-Cohen S (2002). "Is Asperger's syndrome necessarily a disability?"(PDF). Cambridge: Autism Research Centre. Archived from the original(PDF) on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 2 December 2008.
^Lai, Meng-Chuan; Baron-Cohen, Simon (November 2015). "Identifying the lost generation of adults with autism spectrum conditions". The Lancet Psychiatry. 2 (11): 1013–27. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00277-1. PMID26544750.
^Frith U (1991). "'Autistic psychopathy' in childhood". Autism and Asperger Syndrome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–92. ISBN978-0-521-38608-1.