Talk:KCNH1-related disorders

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Launchballer (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that this ultra-rare genetic disorder causes seizures and intellectual disability, but also missing fingernails?

• Reviewed: N/A

Purpleptaters (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• This article meets all the criteria required. It is long enough, with a neutral tone and very well sourced with proper articles. Moreover the hook is accurate and follows the required criteria.

Not sure if the above was written by an LLM, but I'm going to call for a new reviewer anyway.--Launchballer 16:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: based on the contrib history, it looks like this nom was part of a Wiki Education project assignment for scholars. It is unclear if the user is still active. I will leave a note on their talk page just in case. There is still an unsourced paragraph in the current version. Note, this is the second of two related hooks in the WikiEdu series along with Template:Did you know nominations/KCNA2-related disorders. The two hooks are too alike and one (or both) need to be changed. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or merged.--Launchballer 14:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you would do that. See KCNH1 and KCNA2. Viriditas (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1: ... that KCNA2-related and KCNH1-related disorders can cause seizures?.--Launchballer 17:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Apologies, but I neglected to note there’s a third hook that causes seizures: Template:Did you know nominations/Okur-Chung Neurodevelopmental Syndrome. Make it a triple? Viriditas (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ... that ultra-rare genetic disorders like KCNA2-related, KCNH1-related, and OCNDS may cause epileptic seizures? Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Concerned that the source supplied hasn't been published yet (so will likely change), and that it doesn't actually say that this disorder "causes seizures", rather that is the basis for certain mechanisms which can cause seizures (described in detail). It doesn't support the mentions of "ultra-rare", "intellectual disability" or "missing fingernails", which are mainly cited to (unreliable) non-WP:MEDRS sources in our KCNH1-related disorders article (which at least recognises these are related disorders, not causal outcomes). This DYK should not got on any further. Bon courage (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bon courage: Thank you for input. Can you clarify what you mean by "this DYK"? You addressed problems with KCNH1-related disorders, but there are two additional noms. As for the above claims, isn’t it already well established that these are ultra-rare disorders characterized by intellectual disabilities and seizures? The unstated implication in your concern is that there aren’t enough secondary reviews to proceed and all three noms should be closed. Let me know if that’s your position. Viriditas (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • They all make Wikipedia talk about "cause" in a way the good sources do not; if something is well-established we need a source saying so (not a case report). They should all be closed IMO, yes. Bon courage (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bon courage: I don’t think the problem you describe is impossible to fix, but I do see a major stumbling block. All three of these disorders are relatively new in terms of research. They have only been described in the literature for less than ten years with limited funding and attention. Is it your opinion that this is part of the problem, such as trying to write about new disorders on Wikipedia with limited source material? How could one proceed here? Viriditas (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • My concern is using unreliable sources and misrepresenting them in a dumbed-down, click-baity way which makes Wikipedia look bad. Bon courage (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I don't see that as the problem. But I completely acknowledge and recognize that this is how you see it. When I encounter such a thing, I remove the sources and the content and replace it if need be, I don't default to "fail and close". I get that not everybody is on the "just fix it" train. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized reviews (KCNA2-related disorders, KCNH1-related disorders, Okur-Chung Neurodevelopmental Syndrome)

KCNA2-related disorders

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - ?
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Moved to mainspace. New and long enough. I removed inline external links, which are discouraged, and some content that I couldn't verify independently.[1] Closing due to opposition from two users. Nartuto made the point that this should probably be closed due to the inactivity of the users. I said that I would be happy to take over. Upon review, I noticed that some of the content and claims didn't match up with the sources, and removed what I could in some cases. I then reached out to WP:MED for additional eyes. Bon courage weighed in and recommended closure for various reasons stated above. I asked if this applied to all three noms and they said it did. My own personal POV differs from others, in that I prefer to fix things rather than fail and close, but in this case it doesn't look like anyone is willing or able to help me do that, so I am rejecting all three due to these insurmountable odds and a rough consensus against me as the reviewer. The major hurdle here appears to be the failure of all three noms to adhere to WP:MEDRS, which even the most seasoned editors have trouble with. To me, this feels slightly unfair to new editors, as they are often told that others will step in to fix things, and that was not done here. I believe there is a disconnect between what we tell new editors and how we do things in reality, and I am noting this in my close. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KCNH1-related disorders

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - ?
• Neutral: - ?
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Moved to mainspace. New and long enough. See above for closing comments. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okur-Chung Neurodevelopmental Syndrome

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - ?
• Neutral: - ?
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Moved to mainspace. New and long enough. AmpersandArchives provided a self-review of their nom in their comment section, which was helpful, but obviously doesn't qualify, as the review needs to be independent. Updated terminology. See above for closing comments. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]