User:Lwupharm/Testicular atrophy/Lcheng9000 Peer Review

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)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)