User:Lwupharm/Testicular atrophy/Rnguyen4 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Group 28


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Testicular atrophy


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Testicular atrophy

Evaluate the drafted changes
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.