- The content is readable by most people without having to have specialized knowledge on the subject.
- The content is open and reviewed by multiple people.
- You have links to the references. In this case there is a link to this NIH article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667526/ But the content is more technical and harder to read for most people.
I can provide plenty of UK links which refer to Down's syndrome.
By the way, I try to light a candle as well as curse the darkness at Wikipedia, by gathering lists of good sources for all the Wikipedians to use,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Intellig...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Anthropo...
and by updating articles that have long been tagged as needing improvement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification
I wish that Wikipedia were much better, but the current way to make it better is for people to roll up their sleeves and do something about making it better.
The preference in the international medical literature is to name syndromes WITHOUT the possessive suffix on the name of the discoverer, partly because languages don't agree on what grammatical ending to use to indicate genitive case. Thus the standard name of this syndrome, for people who don't more descriptively say "trisomy 21," is "Down syndrome," without the apostrophe-s ending.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eponymously_named_dise...