User:Becomingmichef/sandbox

Prep for Peer Review:

1. Examine the lead section of the article

·   	Does it adequately portray the importance of the topic?

I think that it doesn’t specifically address the importance of the topic, it’s more just presenting facts. I think that it could definitely emphasize the importance of properly understanding the variations and averages of human penis sizes and biases in self-reported data due to the fact that many people define their self-worth based on penis size and it’s often routed in misconceptions.

·   	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

I think it presents the most important basic information, average size and width at different units of measurement, but it does not discuss or indicate other important content throughout the article.

·   	'''Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?'''

The lead focuses a lot on size and how size is compared to other humans (one sentence about gorillas) based on variables such as age, race, height, etc. I don’t think that the lead gives enough weight to the historical perception or scientific biology information presented in the rest of the article.

2. 	'''Focus on the rest of the article now. Is it well organized?'''

I do think that the article is well organized with the table of contents being very helpful for someone to find what they are interested in and go to it.

·   	'''Are different aspects of the article clearly separated into different sections? Are the differences between sections easy to understand? Does each and every statement have a clear reason for being where it is?'''

I think that there may be some area for improvement here as information is repeated.

·   	'''Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way?'''

I am only confused about why the evolution section is disconnected from the biology section.

3. Is it balanced?

·   	'''Is each section’s length equal to its importance to the article’s subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?'''

I think that there is much more to be said in the biochemical section and in the evolution section. They are both brief and it leaves me with more questions than answers

·   	'''Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out?'''

Under the conditions section, they only focus on the conditions of micropenises, but I think that there are other conditions in relation to this topic, specifically curvature and Peyronie's disease (which is discussed slightly in the contemporary perceptions section of the article).

·   	'''Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? (It shouldn’t!)'''

I don’t think it tries to convince the reader of anything other than the fact that there are a lot of misconceptions around penis size (specifically that the average is larger than it is).

4. Is it neutral?

·   	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

I think that there are many different authors on this page, and that can be seen, but in general, the most common perspective that I could guess would be that there are many misconceptions on penis size and that is harmful to individuals and societies.

·   	'''Are there any words or phrases that don’t feel neutral? For example, “the best idea,” “most people,” or negative associations such as “While it’s obvious that x, some insist that y…”'''

I do not see any specifically.

·   	'''Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, “some people say…”'''

When “some” is said it said it is often in reference to something as in “some environmental factors” or “some men”.

'''·   	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember. Neutral doesn’t mean “the best positive light” or “the worst, most critical light.” It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.'''

I think it has a good balance between facts and misconceptions (seeing as there are many misconceptions in the public about this source).

5. Are the sources reliable?

·   	'''Are most of the statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?'''

I think that the source list in the article is very impressive and most all claims are linked to a reliable source.

·   	'''Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two articles? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.'''

There are studies that are referenced multiple times throughout the article but they are balanced out with lots of other sources and studies.

·   	'''Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can’t find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn’t mean it’s presented accurately!'''

I did not find any problems here.

6. Overall…

'''·   	What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?'''

I think that this is a good and thorough article for what most people are coming to the Wikipedia page to find, “what is the average penis size and how does mine compare?”. This being said, I think that there are many other possible reasons one may visit the page or something that someone could take away even if they were looking for some other info in the page.

·   	'''What changes do you plan to apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

I plan to expand upon the evolution section of the article as it is the smallest section of the article with only three sources being referenced. I also think that there could be some organizational improvements as the sexual selection hypotheses are presented elsewhere in the article, but they could be presented there.

·   What's the most important thing you can do to improve the article?

To add newer research to the evolution section and expand upon statements that are not thoroughly discussed and cause for many questions rather than answers.

Sections Being Edited:

Erect[edit]
Scientific studies have been performed on the erect length of the adult penis. Studies that have relied on self-measurement, including those from Internet surveys, consistently reported a higher average length than those that used medical or scientific methods to obtain measurements.

The following staff-measured studies are composed of different subgroups of the human population (in other words, specific age range or race; selection of those with sexual medical concerns or self-selection) that could cause a sample bias.


 * In a study of 80 healthy males published in the September 1996 Journal of Urology an average erect penis length of 12.9 cm (5.1 in) was measured. The purpose of the study was to "provide guidelines of penile length and circumference to assist in counseling patients considering penile augmentation." Erection was pharmacologically induced in 80 physically normal American men (varying ethnicity, average age 54). It was concluded: "Neither patient age nor size of the flaccid penis accurately predicted erectile length."
 * A study published in the December 2000 International Journal of Impotence Research found that average erect penis length in 50 Jewish Caucasian males was 13.6 cm (5.4 in) (measured by staff). The study intended "to identify clinical and engineering parameters of the flaccid penis for prediction of penile size during erection." Erection was pharmacologically induced in 50 Jewish Caucasian patients who had been evaluated for erectile dysfunction (ED) (average age 47±14y). Patients with penis abnormalities or whose ED could be attributed to more than one psychological origin were omitted from the study.
 * A review published in the 2007 issue of BJU International showed the average erect penis length to be 14–16 cm (5.5–6.3 in) and girth to be 12–13 cm (4.7–5.1 in). The paper compared results of twelve studies conducted on different populations in several countries. Various methods of measurements were included in the review.
 * An Indian study of 500 men ages 18 to 60 published in the International Journal of Impotence Research found flaccid, stretched and erect length to be 8.21 cm (3.23 in), 10.88 cm (4.28 in) and 13.01 cm (5.12 in), respectively.
 * A Korean study (published in 1971) of 702 men ages 21 to 31 identified the average erect penile length to be 12.70 cm (5.00 in). Another study (from 1998) of 150 Koreans found the average erect penile length to be 13.42 cm (5.28 in). A third study (published in 1999) of 279 Korean males found the average erect penile length to be 12.66 cm (4.98 in). The most recent study (published in 2016) of 248 Korean men identified the average erect penile length to be 13.53 cm (5.33 in).
 * A review in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, published in 2020, found that the majority of men believed that the average erect penis length is more than 15.24 cm (6 inches). This inaccurate belief is most likely a result of the false data presented in studies from people self-reporting a higher erect penis length. People report penis sizes larger than their reality most likely due to social desirability pressures of having a larger penis to be more desirable.
 * In a 2020 review study, originating from Clemson University, researchers combined the mean erect penis size from 10 studies where researchers took the measurements of erect penises. The purpose of synthesizing information from studies where data was not self-reported, was to report more accurate data than those where self-report is used. In this review, the study found an erect penis to be between 12.95 and 13.92 cm (5.1 and 5.5 inches respectively). It is important to note that people who volunteer for these studies where data is collected may have a smaller penis size than the average population as people with smaller penises are more likely to volunteer for the studies.

Evolution
See also: Sexual selection in human evolution § Sexual anatomy

The human penis is thicker than that of any other primate, both in absolute terms and relative to the rest of the body. Early research, based on inaccurate measurements, concluded that the human penis was also longer. In fact, the penis of the common chimpanzee is no shorter than in humans, averaging 14.4 cm (5.7 inches), and some other primates have comparable penis sizes relative to their body weight.

The evolutionary reasons for the increased thickness have not been established. One explanation is that thicker penises are an adaptation to a corresponding increase in vaginal size. The vaginal canal is believed to have expanded in humans to accommodate the larger size of a newborn's skull. Women may then have sexually selected men with penises large enough to fit their vagina, to provide sexual stimulation and ensure ejaculation.

Other evolutionary hypotheses to explain human's relatively large penis length and girth include a sperm competition hypothesis and a mate competition hypothesis. The sperm competition hypothesis does not have much support as in other mammals where sperm competition is present, larger testes evolve, not larger penises. The mate competition hypothesis involves the prediction that a human with a larger penis would be able to displace the sperm of another. Studies have found that larger penises do not displace other sperm more effectively than smaller pensis, but rather longer pensis may ejaculate sperm inside the vagina in places that would be harder for a following penis to displace. The depth of pelvic thrusting was correlated to the displacement of competing sperm.

Biochemistry
Androgens like testosterone are responsible for penis enlargement and elongation during puberty. Penis size is positively correlated with increasing testosterone levels during puberty. But after puberty, administration of testosterone does not affect penis size, and androgen deficiency in adult men only results in a small decrease in size. Growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) are also involved in penis size, with deficiency (such as that observed in growth hormone deficiency or Laron syndrome) at critical developmental stages having the potential to result in micropenis.

Genetics
There are certain genes, like homeobox (Hox a and d) genes, which may have a role in regulating penis size. In humans, the AR gene, located on the X chromosome at Xq11-12, may affect penis size. The SRY gene located on the Y chromosome may have a role to play. Variance in size can often be attributed to de novo mutations. Deficiency of pituitary growth hormone or gonadotropins or mild degrees of androgen insensitivity can cause small penis size in males and can be addressed with growth hormone or testosterone treatment in early childhood.

Size preferences among sexual partners
In a small study conducted by University of Texas–Pan American and published in BMC Women's Health, 50 undergraduate women were surveyed by two popular male athletes on campus about their perceptions of sexual satisfaction and it was concluded that the width of a penis feels better than the length of a penis, when subjects are asked to choose between the two (size was left unspecified). It was also concluded that this may show that penis size overall affects sexual satisfaction since women chose between the two options they were given.

In a cover story by Psychology Today, 1,500 readers (about two-thirds women) were surveyed about male body image. Many of the women were not particularly concerned with penis size, and over 71% thought men overemphasized the importance of penis size and shape. Generally, the women polled cared more about width than men thought, and less about length than men thought, although the strength of caring for either among women showed a similar pattern.

Another study, conducted at Groningen University Hospital, asked 375 sexually active women (who had recently given birth) the importance of penis size the results of which showed that 21% of women felt length was important and 32% felt that girth was important.

A study conducted at the Australian National University, published in early 2013, showed that penis size influences a man's sex appeal, and the taller the man, the bigger the effect. The study showed 3D computer generated images at life-size, altering the height and other physical attributes, with women typically registering preferences in under 3 seconds. A preference for taller men's larger penis size was notable.

A U.S. study published in 2015 of the stated preferences of a panel of 75 women using 3D-printed models as scale references showed a preferred penis length of 16 cm and a preferred circumference of 12.2 cm for long-term sexual partners, with slightly larger preferred sizes of a length of 16.3 cm and circumference of 12.7 cm for one-time sexual encounters.

Sounds like a very interesting topic. Seems like you've identified an area where this article is lacking.