User talk:Sshapiro1/Female genital disease

Peer Review

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

yes, the group has improved their assigned article using the guiding framework. They have added more information to the article using reliable sources. The lead section is easy to understand and reflects the rest of the article. Finanyohannes (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group has added references from multiple reliable sources such as the NIH. The group went into detail describing clinical trials, using a systematic review to compare clinical trials and the barriers in them for individuals with female genital disease. The group did a great job at referring to multiple diseases and providing thorough explanations of each. --Kamilawrobel (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes multiple sources were added along with a variety of topics within female genital disease such as: barriers, perceptions, malformation and infection.--CarUCSF2025 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2. Person A, Person B, Person C, and Person D each answer this question individually: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

Yes, the group added subsections by specific regions of female genital disease which was of great help and had plenty of information. The subheadings were very helpful, although could use a second source sometimes. They also included more information on barriers and the economic burden which was a great touch. --Kamilawrobel (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the group had followed their plan in discussing some diseases associated with female genital, and they used reliable sources. Finanyohannes (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article was reorganized for better flow, additional sections were added, new sources were added, and outdated sources removed.--CarUCSF2025 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? • Person A answers: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]

Somewhat, it seems the view on studies on female genital disease is that it is underrepresented and stigmatized. It can use more of a rebuttal to make it neutral, however, the sources are great.--Kamilawrobel (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3B

Question 3C Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? Yes edits are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. Proper heading and subheadings are placed as well as punctuation.--CarUCSF2025 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Person B answers: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain

yes, the group has supported their claims with reliable secondary sources such as the NIH.Finanyohannes (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]