Talk:Sexual medicine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lrambaran, E Tsou, Rasaeed, Hpark1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 25 Proposed Edits

Our goals include:

• Lengthen and elaborate on the definition of sexual medicine
• Better define who practices sexual medicine, including the training
• Include population statistics on how many people in America utilize sexual medicine resources
• For the section of "Disorders of the Sexual Organs", create divisions between that can affect all people, and disorders that would affect male, female, and transgender individuals. In addition, we can elaborate on them.
• Edit/delete "Medical History"
• Add a section on the history of the practice

Rasaeed (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Rasaeed 7/28/2020

Thanks for your help! Please ensure that all additions are supported by citations that comply with our guidelines for medical content. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review from Group 26

This groups edits substantially improved the article by elaborating more on the sections and providing more important information. They added more citations to make the information credible and more statistics/data in order to make the reading educational. They formatted this article that is consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style

TChan9 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the

Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

  The article is mostly consistent with the article in the "guiding framework". I feel that the treatments section could be broken down and organized such that the contents section show 1.1,1.2,1.3.. etc. Another tip is that maybe you could include some pg appropriate pictures relevant to the topic. 

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

  It seems that based on the group's talk page goals they have achieved every single task that they had set out to do.

• Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…

  No, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. No pictures were used so no copyright was violated. Every single sentence that stated a fact was followed by a citation from a reputable source. 

W.chang UCSF (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The group’s edits covered a wide variety of topics that helped build a better understanding of the article topic. Several unique sections were used very well to enhance the efficiency of the article. The scope section sets the table for why the topic is important, the history section recognizes that the subject is not widely talked about and details its path to normalcy, and the challenges section describe its relevance today. The sections were well-tailored and thought out revolving around the subject. The group achieved their goals of creating a clear definition and snapshot of the subject’s importance and met all their goals outlined in their proposed edits. Most points were verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available. There was one study cited under the sexual dysfunction in transgender persons that was a primary source. However, given the specificity of the topic, secondary sources were likely not readily available and a primary source may be acceptable.

Szhang0216 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the group does a substantial job in updating the necessary pieces of information as outlined in their own talk page. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, the Wikipedia article page is vastly updated with a substantial amount of content that was not present otherwise. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Yes! It gives both sides, talks about how it is approached in the sense of medicine/surgery but also how it's treated with behavioral therapy through sex therapists. Also, gives non-bias viewpoints on how sexual medicine is viewed from different cultures, religions and countries. Overall, the article approaches a very neutral point of view. Kanwar, future UCSF pharmD (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Rasaeed, Lrambaran, E Tsou and Hpark1, make sure that you all are using WP:MEDRS-complaint sources for medical/health material. Uptodate.com, which has been recently added, is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. An exception to stricter WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing is the history section; this is per WP:MEDDATE. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)