Talk:Hypergonadotropic hypogonadism

Foundations II 2022 Group 13 proposed edits

 * 1) Look for References
 * 2) Find References for what was already written or remove it
 * 3) Add more sections to organize the article better
 * 4) Add more Information Sskwok1 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Sskwok1 (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Peer reviews from Group 12
1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"? The group's dits have substantially improved the article. There's a high-level summary about HH in the lead section, following with that is a clear content structure that consists of important aspects about HH. There are decent number of references used in this article, and they are from reliable resources. Content tone is overall neutral, and well balanced among each section, except the "Complications" section.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The group has achieved its overall goals. Languages are easy to understand. More sections were added to expand the content and well explained in each part. Hyperlinks were added to help understand the other medical terms.

3D. Do the edits reflect languages that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? Overall, the edits reflect languages that supports DEI, except there's once place that use the word "patient" under the "Diagnosis" section. Mchen2022 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC).

Jkvu25 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the group’s edits have substantially improved the article. Group 13 added a new section elaborating on the complications and added a section that explains both signs and symptoms. All subsections are essential information that could explain the disease state well. The group expanded on the diagnosis methods and statements were well backed up by reliable references.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The group has done a good job achieving the overall goals for improvement. All references cited are obtained from reliable sources (the only one being reference #14, which I am not entirely sure if the cited website is a good reference). The information is well balanced and easy to read.

3. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? The draft reflects a neutral point of view. The article does not show a particular perspective but more like presenting the disease state in an objective manner. The article is not persuasive and biased toward one viewpoint. Overall, the group presented the information from various aspects and the article was well-balanced. One thing to mention is that in the treatment section, the group addressed the differences in treatment for both men and women, which was a good example of showing a balanced presentation of data that addresses both populations. SKXu (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the group's edits substantially improve the article in a variety of ways. There is a clear lead section that summarizes the condition and each of the sections are comprised of information and language that is easy to read. There is a clear structure to the article which follows the Wikipedia:MEDMOS guidelines. The tone of the article is also neutral and the sources appear to be reliable.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. The additions of their edits to this article has greatly increased the amount of information on this topic. A suggestion could be to add more content to the "Complications" section. In addition, the word "osteoprosis" from the Complications section is mispelled. 3. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Yes, most of the claims are verifiable with cited secondary sources. There are some sources that are derived from websites on the topic, which could be replaced with reviews or analyses instead if possible. Jkvu25 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

1.	The group’s edits substantially improve the article. The introduction/description is easy to follow; for instance, hypogonadism is summarized succinctly as the effects of hormones on steroid production. From there the structure is clear, going from signs and symptoms to causes, diagnosis, and treatment. Tone of edits is neutral and sources are reliable. 2.	Group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. Language is inclusive, there is limited jargon, and information has been built upon. The way causes are broken down into bullet points because of varying etiologies is an example of the article's good organization.

3.	C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? There is one inconsistency with Wikipedia’s manual of style: use of word “patients.” Otherwise, sections are appropriate and lay language is used as much as possible. Zhouaa (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing References
Our group has reviewed all references and they are all correctly formatted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirna.kal (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)