Talk:Sperm granuloma

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Vnguyen11475 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 24 proposed edits
Create sections: (1) What is it? (2) What causes it? (3) Signs/symptoms (4) Treatment options Rchllbby (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

replace medical jargon with lay language

add to references list for stronger evidence Danielletmunoz (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

References Review
(a) Rchllbby reviewed #1-5, danielletmunoz reviewed #6-10, kmadan reviewed #11-15, wkastoun reviewed #16-18. (b) No references from predatory publishers were identified. (c) References #2, 10, 13, 15 were duplicates; we consolidated all callouts in the text, which now refer to reference 2. Reference #14 and 19 were duplicates; we consolidated all callouts in the text, which now refer to reference 14. Rchllbby (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
• Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

I believe these edits do improve the article because it seems from the edit history there was a small amount originally available for readers to learn about. I found the first four paragraphs to be extremely informative as well as easy to understand. The entire article also had a nice flow of information. It was clear to understand first what this condition was, how it can appear and what to look out for, then smoothly transitioned into what that next may be for a reader who has found themselves to be diagnosed with this condition.

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

I believe the group has achieved their goal for creating the four different sections fairly well. The information in all four were very descriptive but also concise with their explanations. It was very clear to understand how these granulomas form from either post-vasectomy or trauma/inflammation. However, I believe there is still some medical jargon that could be continued to be edited. For example, descriptions about the different processes to diagnose sperm granulomas such as "fine needle aspiration" or "orchiectomy" may confuse readers who may not have a scientific background. Other misdiagnosis conditions like "supernumerary testis" could be further explained using lay language.

• Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain)

I believe this submission was consistent with a neutral tone all throughout the article. There was not a sentence I found that seemed to have bias when written about the sperm granulomas. I found it informative when this condition was stated to be mostly asymptomatic and rarely detrimental but was still able to find out the different treatment and prevention options like using NSAIDs/testosterone supplementation or even undergoing an operation. It allows the readers to understand the background of this condition but also provide them with additional resources if they would like to research more in-depth. One thing

Rx rlee (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I added some descriptions and changed some of the more technical words we used to give lay people a better understanding. Kmadan (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The group’s edits did significantly add to the article that was almost nonexistent prior to their additions. There is good organization as if stumbling upon another Wikipedia article as everything is easily located. I like how it introduces the condition and follows with the signs and symptoms to treatment and then its potential lasting effects.Vnguyen11475 (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, the organization of the categories was thought out with great consideration as we hope readers find it flows intuitively. Rchllbby (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? I can see the group's goal in creating the specific categories they have for the article. It expands on the lack of information the general public has on this condition and goes straight to the point on what people would need to see such as what the condition is and what are the known treatments. However, I would recommend citing more terms from other Wikipedia sites that talk about them or explaining them more in lay language if no other articles exist for it.Vnguyen11475 (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

From what I can see the claims are verifiable and do not use primary sources as references for their edits. These cited secondary sources look freely available for someone who wants to know more about where they got the information for their Wikipedia article.Vnguyen11475 (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnguyen11475 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

•	Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? This article did not have much information available before being edited by the group. They did a great job in organizing the article in a way that makes it easy for the reader to follow. The first section provided a very thorough explanation of sperm granulomas. The following sections which detail diagnosis, signs and symptoms, development, treatment and effects on sperm quality were helpful so the reader can understand how to apply the information properly.

•	Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? I believe that the group has achieved its goals for improvement as they have added a lot of important details to each of their sections. The information is neutral and concise as well. I appreciated how they talked about the different ways sperm granulomas can manifest from surgery, trauma or an infection etc. The discussion of how some can appear much later after a surgery and can painful, while some are not helpful for the reader to understand that there is a variety of ways they can appear. Lastly, I felt that it was great how they specifically explained the ways in which sperm granulomas can occur in non-human species like rats, dogs, horses and fish. The other sections can help the reader understand more specifics, but the bulk of the information appeared in the first section. The only recommendation I have is for the group to change some of the wording to lay language to make it easier to understand since some parts are a little dense with a lot of medical jargon. Overall, I feel that they have achieved the goals for improvement.

•	Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? Yes the edits are formatted in a way that is mostly consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. The manual of style states that editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct language and use friendly layouts. They have a very strong lead section which is their concise summary of the article, strong section headings, demonstrated article consistency, and solid grammar throughout. As stated previously, the only additional recommendation I have is to replace some of the sections that contain heavy jargon with lay language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisham13 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Daisha,
 * Thank you for your insight and evaluation of our article! We will take a look and see where we can change some of the medical jargon to lay language. If not, we will try to link that word to a separate Wiki article that people can reference. We appreciate your help looking over our work. Danielletmunoz (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

== •	Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? == I feel that the group has incorporated straightforward and easy-to-follow categories with explanations that flow. Prior to their edits, it seems like there was a brief description on the topic; however, their contributions have definitely further improved the article. Their edits incorporate layman's jargon and are detailed enough with hyperlinks that can bring me to clarifications for certain medical terms.

== •	Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? == Based on their proposed edits, it seems that the group has reached their overall goals for improvement. I like their use of adding a picture too!

Thank you, we will look into adding even more pictures to enhance the experience. Rchllbby (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

== •	Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? == I believe the edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. Although this article mainly focuses on the male genitalia, I feel that this group has done extensive research to include non-human species and refrain from using strong language that may induce negative biases in their edits. Overall, their article is well organized and their language reflects that. The only thing is that this article utilizes a lot of medical jargon, I would like to suggest perhaps finding more ways to simplify the terms more, if possible. :) K.MAII (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thank you for your thorough review. We will make sure that all medical terms in our article are either defined and explained or written in lay language.  Wkastoun (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)