User:ScrumpyLad/sandbox

If Human penis has been perceived to be a medical article, it would be WP:MEDRS compliant. It clearly is not. If Human penis has been considered to be a medical article, I am confident the ever-vigilant medical fraternity on WP would have made this article MEDRS compliant well before now (the article was created in 2007). It is obvious from previous editing of the article that Human penis is not considered to be a medical article.
 * It contains a plethora of primary sources - MEDRS states Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content
 * In scanning the reference list, I counted only 5 secondary publications published post-2010 out of a total of 82 references i.e. only 6% of the sources. Furthermore, some of the secondary sources and extremely dated, e.g. 1940, 1962, 1966 - MEDRS recommends using only reviews published in the last 5 years.
 * It uses "unusual" non-medical sources such as the Guangzhou Daily (the article is not written in English)
 * Links to medical information published by an environmental advocacy source!
 * Several sources have no year of publication or are missing other necessary details, or use wikilinks as sources - this is poor editing, indicating human penis is not being perceived as a medical article as these are generally of the very highest standard.