Talk:Testicular atrophy

Link
I removed the following link 'cause it's hugely spammy even if it is useful:


 * Effects of anabolic steroids

I'm trying to find a more appropriate one. WLU 11:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with 'Testicular nubbin'?
I'm wondering if this article ought to be merged with the orphaned article Testicular nubbin. They seem to largely describe the same condition -- or perhaps Testicular nubbin is simply the extreme case of Testicular atrophy.

Kiwikiu (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Aazad55 (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 group 28 proposed edits
Add Signs and symptoms section

Add relevant information to current "Causes" section

Add Diagnosis section

Add Treatment section

Replace primary sources with secondary sources when appropriate -- Z.W.Abdul (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Person A:
Question 1: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes, the group was able to expand on previous causes for testicular atrophy as well as add several resources. The introduction/lead has a concise introductory sentence and gives a good overview of the rest of the article. The group organized the article in a natural progression and also kept things concise in the signs and symptoms by using bullet points. The content is relevant and many of the sources are quite recent so it seems like the information is up to date. The images added are also relevant and well-captioned. There is a minor grammatical error in "Assessment of testicular function also dependent on labs." Change to "is also dependent on labs." Other than that, I don't see grammatical or spelling errors upon first glance. In terms of the citations, make sure to edit the links to remove the month and day in the source date to comply with the wiki standards. Additionally, some of the sources are retrieved from blog articles that aren't considered suitable (for example the ones from Medical News Today and Healthline). I would generally stick to articles that have a PMID.

Question 2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Yes, the group proposed to work on adding a section on signs and symptoms, causes, diagnoses and treatment. All these sections are added and elaborated on.

Question 3a: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

Yes, there doesn't seem to be a specific perspective that the article is leaning towards or an idea that they are trying to push. There aren't any words or phrases that don't feel neutral to me. The only minor edit I would make is in the COVID-19 section, rather than saying there is a "research has shown evidence in the relationship" you should change it to "a possible relationship" because the first phrasing is a bit less neutral and the article is suggesting that more research needs to be done still to fully establish a relationship. Another minor thing to change, would be removal of the word "important" in the treatments section because it can be construed as not neutral. Instead, you can say "Immediate treatment can reduce the recovery time for the testes, however, there is still a chance..." This is more a suggestion to improve the flow as well. Rnguyen4 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! I agree with the advice you gave on the flow of the article. I fixed the edits that you suggested when it comes to my tone in the article and made the article more neutral in tone. We will make sure to look out for our wording! D Do!UCSFpharmstudent2024 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Person B:
Question 1: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

yes, this group has a well-organized guiding framework. It follows the sequential order from causes, signs and symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. The group provides various information on the causes of the condition. Also, signs and symptoms are in chronological order which is easy to follow. However, the lead should include more information about the condition. For example, under the sign and symptoms, they mention this condition may occur before or after adolescence with different signs and symptoms not only decrease the size of the testicle. In the lead, they should provide this information as well to provide a better understanding of this condition.

Question 2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

yes, this group has a clear structure, neutral content, and up-to-date secondary sources.

Question 3b:Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

Many of the sources are verifiable secondary sources, and the articles are up-to-date. However, some unreliable sources are not from textbooks or journal articles, such as citations #1, 2, 6, and 10, no author in some of these articles. In the lead and sign and symptoms sections, the statements are attributed to unreliable sources (citations #1 and #2). Citation #14 needs to edit to include the title. Citation#15 is an overview, so this group should point out which article they use.ZZhang031 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZhang031 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I have replaced some of the sources mentioned and limited the use of medical information websites (e.g. Healthline) in the lead to only general definitions or statements that are not typically found in a journal article such as described here. Z.W.Abdul (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback! I've added authors to the citations you mentioned. I've also added the article used in citation 15. R.Khalilieh (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Person C:
Question 1: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] Yes, the group's edits expanded on previous statements on causes of testicular atrophy, providing much greater detail as well as elaborating on the research evidence. The group also added other important sections that readers may want to know about, including Signs and Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment in a logical order. The Lead section could be improved by giving a brief summary of the other following sections. Many of the article sources are updated and recent and I can see the group attempted to include secondary sources. However, citation #13 should be redone or removed, because ScienceDirect is not a proper source to cite. It is a website that presents many studies/other sources on the same page but does not help navigate readers to the original source, making it very difficult to verify the cited source's information.

Question 2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] Yes, the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement based on what I can see above. They successfully added the desired sections and managed to include relevant secondary sources from within the last 10 years.

Question 3C: Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? [explain] The article uses headings that are consistent with Wikipedia's recommendations for diseases/disorders/syndromes. They are presented in a logical order that makes sense. The article uses a good neutral tone and does not appear to offer medical advice. Most of the article is written in clear lay language understandable by the general reader. However, some technical terminology may need to be explained or reworded when introduced for the first time, such as "HPG axis abnormalities" under Causes and "orchiectomy" under Treatment. I would also be careful about presenting some statements in the Treatment section as facts. For example, the statement "Taking one dose of antioxidant agents such as, melatonin and steroids, once a day for 7 days has been shown to be effective in the recovery of the testes in the late period" is taken from a primary source -- a trial of this treatment method on rats, not humans. The term late period is also not explained in this instance. This study may not be reliable enough to include in a Wikipedia article. Lcheng9000 (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! I agree with needing to explain what these terms are because someone might not understand what these words would mean. I added the meaning of orchiectomy. In addition, you are right about the statement and I removed it from the article since it is not relevant to the article. D Do!UCSFpharmstudent2024 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The lead is being expanded per your suggestion to better reflect the body of the article. Z.W.Abdul (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Person D:
Question 1: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

Yes, the group's edits significantly improve the article. They rewrote the article with addition of secondary sources and expanded on the causes section of the article using strong references and sub headers to describe each cause with its source. In some sub headers, they also added more than one reference which validates the other references, meaning that they have found a common result in more than one reference.

I would question the use of Reference (1), although Medical News Today is an article edited by healthcare professionals using evidence-based data, the reference itself is not recommended to be used or cited but the information should be found and cited by verified and published articles in meta-analysis, published studies that have been previously cited and peer reviewed. They extensively used this reference for the signs and symptoms which could be found in published and cited studies that are verifiable to cite.

The group also clearly defines the topic and addresses it with relevant headers and sub-headers further clarifying the causes, symptoms, labs and treatment. Overall, the group did a good job keeping it clean and simple for viewers to understand. The also used simple terms and medical words have been cited for viewers to learn more about the topic if interested. The images added have also been cited correctly adhering to the Wikipedia's copyright regulations and flow of the article is in proper format which makes it easy to understand.

Question 2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

Yes, the group has established a good amount of information about the topic with verifiable sources as well as appropriate organizational flow of the topic discussion.

Question 3D: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain]

Yes, I believe so. Since this group's discussion is on testicular atrophy, it applies to those with testicles as it is a medical condition/disease of the testicles. The group has not used any language that reflected bias or included relevance of the disease in a certain population. They used general language that described the disease and its causes, symptoms, examinations and treatment. Their edits support diversity, equity and inclusion. Drmudawar (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Drmudawar


 * Thank you for the feedback! I agree with your comment that we should look for more credible sources and not cite articles such as Medical News Today since the information may not necessarily be accurate. We will continue to monitor and make sure we use reputable secondary sources! Lwupharm (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 group 28 final review of references
Approximately 22 references were reformatted to exclude month and day from source date. All references have been reviewed and should now be cited correctly to the best of our knowledge. Z.W.Abdul (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)