Talk:Male genital examination

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 June 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wnsop8, Samantha.Maina, Jaquimarquezg, Narjes.nadimzadeh (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundation 2, 2023: Goals & Proposed Edits

Our goals for this article:

-Expand the Procedure section

-Add section to cover/ define abnormalities found during examination

-Add section on how to do a self exam

-Correct and enhance the "other purposes" section

-Add more medical references and secondary sources

-Samantha.Maina (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Wnsop8 reviewed #1-8 jaquimarquezg reviewed #9-16 Narjes.nadimzadeh reviewed #17-24 Samantha.Maina reviewed #25-32 we all looked over #33,34. We removed three sources in total. Found 1 broken citation, and 2 were duplicates. Originally had 34 and now have 31 sources. Jaquimarquezg (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

This group's edits substantially improve the article as described in Wikipedia's peer review guiding framework. They are still in the process of adding more content to this article, but they have achieved its overall goals for improvement. Their draft submission reflects a neutral point of view; they do not try to persuade their readers, make claims on behalf of others, or use any language that can be perceived as biased. However, some sections of the article were missing references. Also, in the "Other purposes" section, there is a grammatical error: "Clinicians using" should be changed to "Clinicians use." Futurepharmd (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The sections that were missing references were under the "Pediatric genital abnormalities" part of the article. Futurepharmd (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The group's editing work on the article was outstanding, resulting in significant overall improvement. They expanded the procedure section and included detailed descriptions, making it more informative. Additionally, they added valuable information about performing the self-exam, which enhances the article's usefulness to readers. Furthermore, the inclusion of medical and secondary sources that are accessible to everyone strengthens the credibility and reliability of the article's content. It shows their commitment to providing accurate and reliable information to the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnakhan209 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The group’s edit did improve the article significantly. I really appreciate how organized the article was starting from procedure to examination then area of examination, etc. The article was very cohesive, and it didn’t seem like a bunch of information was thrown in together. I really liked the deep dive on the abnormalities because it described in depth the abnormal qualities in lay language. It was very easy to understand, and they also hyperlinked certain topics for readers to further explore. Overall, I agree that the group did follow the guiding framework. I do believe the group did achieve the overall goals for improvement. The group expanded the article to a detailed length in lay language for people outside of that certain field to understand. I want to praise them for making the article so organized and cohesive. The edits are uniform and consistent to Wikipedia’s manual of edits. After each set of information, the group properly cited the accurate article. I double checked their sources and more than half of them are secondary sources with the doi listed. The other were very well-known sources such as “Healthy Male” just to describe how exams are carried out. I think they did a good job editing this article in general. Tinarss (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Tina Le 8/1/2023

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? The group's edits so far have improved the article from their starting point. Lots of good information added and filling in some of the gaps of the information that was not included from the original state. The added information was non-biased and not giving a diagnosis, but providing information. Language used was easy to understand and when using more scientific/difficult terms hyperlinks were provided to their respective pages.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The intended goals to improve the article were met, great job!

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain) I think the addition of the "ambiguous genitalia" portion was great in addressing this that could even be later linked to inclusion of information for those that are transgender, nonbinary, etc. if there are studies on this. The topic may be specific to the male genitalia, but you may consider want to consider using inclusive language for those that are transgender, nonbinary, etc. that have male genitalia by using something like "individuals" at times. T.leepharmacy (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)