User talk:Lwupharm/Testicular atrophy/Drmudawar Peer Review

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) 18:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)