Note: this represents where the article stands relative to theGood Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Just flagging Brutocao and Berni reviews as a bit older. I doubt that there is any newer reviews on this topic but I might take a look
A little worried about the Teede H, Deeks A, Moran L (June 2010) source due to the age of the source and claim being made "PCOS is the most common hormonal disorder (endocrine disorder) among women between the ages of 18 and 44", would be better to get a more recent source to verify this
Done
Less worried about Pal L, ed. (2013) as it's a claim unlikely to change over time but still might be worth looking for an alternative
Done.
for those meeting the NIH criteria I'm assuming you meen the PCOS criteria but the wording is a bit unclear here.
Reworded as 'meeting the NIH PCOS criteria'.
I'm curious if Brakta S, Lizneva D, Mykhalchenko K, Imam A, Walker W, Diamond MP, et al. (1 December 2017). and Dokras A, Saini S, Gibson-Helm M, Schulkin J, Cooney L, Teede H (2017). could be updated? I do know it is hard to find sources for the social issues but I'll do some digging myself aswell
As someone who does quiet a bit of cleanup of existing FA/GA that are being reassesed, it would avoid future issues if a citation could be included for the images "Directed acylic graph for Mendelian randomization Wikipedia page.png" "Diagnosis of PCOS.svg" and "IPSC Model for PCOS.png", I know these are not strictly required for a GA but it does make future cleanup work loads easier
I've added a citation on Commons for the first two. The last one is own work, and I cannot immediately figure out where it came from. Not copyvio at least (checked with reverse search). Might delete, as the figure isn't that informative or high-quality.—Femke 🐦 (talk)17:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good and I appreciate it as I’ve found that the medical graphics are particularly venerable tocitogenesis if left unsourced in the first place. It’s just helpful to know where the information in the graphic is coming from.IntentionallyDense(Contribs)19:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have deleted the last image now, which was too jargonny anyway. Does make the last bit of the article quite text-heavy.
I've looked for newer sources around funding in quite a few places, but struggled. I've looked, but less deeply, for more sources on mental health as well, but there might be one I've overlooked.—Femke 🐦 (talk)18:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sociocultural aspects are hard to find RS for so i’m not too concerned about them. I’ll look into the mental health aspects tonight but assuming I can’t find anything more recent and reliable it is fine since it is the most recent reliable source.IntentionallyDense(Contribs)21:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No concerns MEDRS wise, I’m going to leave the spot check forDoctorWhoFan91. For MESRS spot checks I usually tend to focus more on statements that could easily be misinterpreted. For this article I’d probably focus on spot checks in the sections “ Associated conditions”, “environment” (under causes), “Society” “Mechanisms” and the subsections of “lifestyle” and “medication” under the treatment section. These areas tend to be easier to mess up with and if no info is misinterpreted in those sections then it’s probably safe to say sourcing is good.IntentionallyDense(Contribs)08:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any not required, optional feedback will be marked as NR (not required). Any comment I make that begins with NR is optional and does not weigh into the decision for pass/fail.
Lead
NRA blood test for high levels of anti-Müllerian hormone can replace the ultrasound. to avoid possibly confusion perhaps phrase as "can replace the ultrasound based diagnostic criteria".IntentionallyDense(Contribs)16:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done something else. "A blood test for high levels of anti-Müllerian hormone can replace the ultrasound in the diagnosis". Does that work?—Femke 🐦 (talk)20:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the lead is often the only part people read and should be the most accessible, non technical part of the article, Metformin should be wikilinked so that readers know it is a medication and can easily learn more about it.ovulation can be induced with letrozole, among other methods. letrozole should again be Wikilinked, but I'm also curious about the wording here. By "other methods" do you mean other medications? if so then maybe change the wording to reflect that.IntentionallyDense(Contribs)16:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A skin condition where dark, thick, and "velvety" patches can form, or an oily skin from my understanding, AN and oily skin are separate. I think maybe introducing AN after the colon (the punctuation not organ) may make more sense as this is currently unclear.IntentionallyDense(Contribs)05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NRis more likely in overweight or obese women with PCOS, compared to women without PCOS and the same BMI. this implies it's more likely than in overweight and obese women without PCOS but I wanted to double check. I think maybe wording it as "compared to overweight or obese women without PCOS" may flow a bit betterIntentionallyDense(Contribs)05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the term used in the paper, so seems fine to me.
NRA low birth weight, exposure to androgens in the womb, and exposure to hormone disruptors (endocrine disruptors) may also predispose people to developing PCOS. I'm always a bit cautious with transition words/phrases since they can sometimes convey different meanings than intended. by "may also" do you mean they are suspected to but have less evidence that the previously listen factors?IntentionallyDense(Contribs)05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PCOS is hereditary and causes elevated androgen levels. Ergo, babies born to PCOSers will have been exposed to elevated androgen levels. But are we sure that it's actually the effect of androgensper se (e.g., it could turn up if there's no PCOS in the family history, but the mother has an androgen-secreting tumor or is taking androgens) and not genetics which incidentally cause elevated androgens?WhatamIdoing (talk)22:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence here is not that strong, hence it's in the second cluster of risk factors. It is mentioned by the NIH with a caveat of the animal studies it's based on:[1]. I could make the tone of the second sentence weaker..—Femke 🐦 (talk)07:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've simplified it to "It uses the randomness of inheriting different genes to do so." The full explanation is in the graph to the right. Does that make it clearer?—Femke 🐦 (talk)13:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My two best overview sources (Lancet 2022, Nature 2024) describe it in these terms, and dedicate about half the space of the epigenetics discussion to this. The evidence in humans in much weaker still.—Femke 🐦 (talk)12:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to 'specific epigenetic changes'. Not sure if that resolves the issue. The original sentence I'm paraphrasing is "Global DNA methylation patterns in umbilical cord blood from neonates born to mothers with PCOS suggest a unique PCOS-associated epigenetic signature, predisposing them to reproductive, metabolic and neuropsychiatric disorders"—Femke 🐦 (talk)12:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NRIn the brain, the cycle involves increased gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) pulse frequency. maybe reword to "The pitutary/hypothalamus sends out GnRH more frequently or something along those linesIntentionallyDense(Contribs)05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded as "In the brain, the hypothalamus sends out gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) pulses with higher frequency", which still implies there is a cyclicity to the pulses.—Femke 🐦 (talk)12:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In adults only, gynecologic ultrasonography first looks for small ovarian follicles I think this should be reworded a bit as first may be confusing as to what step this is used at. Maybe "For adults, ultrasound can be used to look for..."IntentionallyDense(Contribs)05:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GLP-1s are mentioned both in the management introduction and in the medication section. Do you think it should be mentioned a third time?—Femke 🐦 (talk)07:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the sources support it. I've got the impression that GLP-1s are now preferred to bariatric surgery (which is mentioned) for infertility, because it's reversible.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2023 international guidelines still said that one shouldn't use GLP-1's outside clinical trials. I've now added a 2025 paper, which says it's preferred over surgery. I've completely removed bariatric surgery with this, as it seems like the role is becoming more niche.—Femke 🐦 (talk)21:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall not concerned but I do think there are some things to be clarified with technical language.
Finally found the time to do a proper readthrough of the article. It's a very good article, and most changes to make it better would require much work, but that's not required for a GA level article, so I will only suggest GA level changes.
Key research questions in PCOS are around the best way to manage the condition, including with new anti-obesity drugs. In terms of criteria for diagnosis, age-specific levels of AMH have to be specified. Biomarkers are needed for early diagnosis, and to guide drug development. Another open question is how to define the male phenotype to assess male relatives of women with PCOS.:Key research questions about PCOS focus on the best way to manage the condition, including with new medications. In terms of criteria for diagnosis, age-specific levels of AMH need to be specified. Biomarkers need to be found for early diagnosis, and to guide drug development. Another open question is about defining the male phenotype to assess male relatives of women with PCOS. or something like this (This paragraph does not look as well written as it should be)
Good catch. I've changed the first sentence into "Key research questions in PCOS focus on the best way to manage the condition, including with new anti-obesity drugs.". I think the existing last sentence is better, as the word 'about' implies more vagueness than the original source.—Femke 🐦 (talk)19:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other papers also put the question in that shape, i.e.this 2022 paper. I think it is certain enough now to phrase it like that. They haven't quite figured out what is genetics vs epigenetics, but they're pretty sure there is a connection there.—Femke 🐦 (talk)19:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does. You won't have an open question about how to define X unless you're certain that X exists. There is no point in defining a non-existent medical condition. (Think about it: If we already know that people can't get, e.g., cancer of the hair, then nobody's going to talk about a desire to define what cancer of the hair would look like, if it existed.)WhatamIdoing (talk)21:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any remaining concerns about the male phenotype thing? I do agree that the article is written from the POV of it existing but also I do trust the Nature primer as they tend to be pretty good with that sort of thing.IntentionallyDense(Contribs)20:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Make changes to "lifestyle" subsection- move the stuff from the second paragraph under the "Society and Culture" section, as misinformation widespread on the internet might lead to misinterpretations to the general reader.
That would mean splitting the paragraph, as it's not only lifestyle misinformation, but also about treatments more generally. I think it fits better in one place?—Femke 🐦 (talk)19:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it looks better in one place, but I just want to ensure that a shallow read by readers would not lead to assumptions that random misinformation on the internet is correct.HSLover/DWF (talk)10:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would require us to broaden it out, as misinformation is not the only element to self-care, or it wouldn't feel neutral. A 3-paragraph section doesn't need splitting, I don't think.—Femke 🐦 (talk)21:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else looks good for a GA level article- make these changes, and I will do a spot-check afterwards. Well done,Femke, you have made this very important article very well-written- thank you. Thank you, UnintentionallyDense, your review was great and reduced the work I needed to do in the review.HSLover/DWF (talk)17:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate it too. I'm always so glad when somebody finds those sentences that are tough to understand and pushes me to condense and simplify them :).—Femke 🐦 (talk)19:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it helps to read them after a 8 hour shift in a hot greasy kitchen when your mind is already fried. really makes you pick up on every little potentially confusing detail. @DoctorWhoFan91 i’m happy to pass based on reliable sources, prose, depth, NPOV, and images. assuming you did a spot source check, I’ll let you go ahead and do the honours of passing this one!IntentionallyDense(Contribs)17:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
