Talk:Spermatocele

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): S. Chu Future UCSF PharmD, AHassani, PharmD Cand, J. fong, future UCSF PharmD, R. Diaz, Future UCSF PharmD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tang Thao, TMendoza11, TNgo22, T.Truong.UCSF. Peer reviewers: Achang6, Agkobi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 27 proposed edits

This article was lacking in overall information as well as citations to back up many statements. We will be adding citations to the "General", "Causes", "Diagnosis", and "Treatment" sections as well as expanding on the current information using a variety of reliable resources. A few statements in the article seemed too brief so we will also be expanding on them to ensure the information fits in the context of the article. Some of the original wording was not very clear upon first read so we will be going through and making sure the content is as clear and as understandable as possible for the reader. S. Chu Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Problems with Article

I really don't think this is a good article and for a number of reasons. It had pictures (which did not work, so I removed them), the wording is poor, too brief, and fails to consult any sources. It could definitely be improved by someone with more medical knowledge then myself.Smooth0707 07:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Torbiel najądrza.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Foundations II Proposed Edits 2021

We plan to improve this article by adding updated pictures, improving and finding additional references, fix the wording to increase clarity and make it more understandable to the readers, and plan to add more information to each section such as the causes, treatment, and diagnosis. TNgo22 (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Foundations II 2021 Group 2 Peer Review

Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
Yes, I found the group's edits greatly improved the article as a whole. Many new sections were added or revamped such as the History, Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Diagnosis, Special Populations, Male Reproductive System, and Prevention and Screening. I found the section on Chronic infectious/noninfectious epididymitis particularly helpful in providing a more nuanced delve into some of the surrounding material. I would like to suggest including more sources in that section as well as potentially reducing some of the verbiage to a lower reading level. For example, instead of saying "...no clear etiology is found in most cases..." "... no clear cause is found in most cases..." may fit better for the average reader. It may also be helpful to provide hyperlinks to other pages or to sources where individuals could read up on some of the more difficult medical terms such as diethylstilbestro (DES). Furthermore, there may be need to go through and change some of the language to a more objective tone such as removing "Unfortunately" at the beginning of the Risk Factors section. Style changes for better wording is also needed to remove repetitive words. Overall, I believe the edits as a whole greatly improved the quality of the page and created a good foundation for others to work off of. Achang6 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain)
Yes, all of the pronouns and nouns were inclusive and did not single out any group other than those with disease states. It may be interesting to add information on female rates under Epidemiology. Achang6 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Part 1: Yes, the group's edits substantially improved the article with their addition and expansion of multiple sections that provided more information to the readers. However, I would suggest adding more up to date references for the "chronic noninfectious epididymitis" and "chronic infectious epididymitis" sections and using more neutral words instead of "unfortunately" that appeared many times in the article. Overall, there is a clear structure with the added sections. The group also achieved their overall goals for improvement because the edits made the article easy to read and understand A. Ng, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Part 2 (question 3): Yes, the edits are consistent with the wiki manual of style, because there are sections for history, epidemiology, risk factors, causes, diagnosis, prevention/screening, special populations, and treatment. Mechanism/ pathophysiology section is missing and could be added. The article structure can be improved if some sections were reformatted like putting "male reproductive system" earlier in the article or putting "prevention and screening" closer to "treatment" section, for example. A. Ng, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Part 1: This group added a lot of edits to make this article easy to understand. The group added many pictures and information to the different sections on this assigned topic. For example, this group wanted to expand on the causes section and was able to complete these goals for improvement of this article. Agkobi (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Part 2 (question 1): There are some parts of the paper that can be edited to remove recommendations to have a more neutral language. For example, in the Epidemiology section, when talking about Chronic infectious epididymitis, "If suspected to have chronic infectious epididymitis, consider getting a urinalysis, urine culture, and urine nucleic acid amplification tests for presence of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis." This is a recommendation, so I would consider changing this to a more neutral language. Another example of non-neutral language is in the Chronic noninfectious epididymitis section. Remove "unfortunately". Another example would be under male reproductive system, "Therefore, serious thought must be considered when undergoing spermatocelectomy." I would change this language or remove it from article completely. Agkobi (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Part 1: Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? and Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

After reviewing the article assigned, I believe that the group's collective edits were consistent with Wikipedia's style of editing and improved the status of the article. For instance, the additions added to the Treatment section were neutrally presented, contained reliable sources, and was an appropriate summary of the topic. The substantial amount of edits made by the group were digestible for the reader and provided a complete perspective in most sections. In terms of recommendations, future additions to the article could include expanding on the literature to support the sections on risk factors, introduction, and male reproductive system. Also, the editors in the future should use secondary or tertiary sourced evidence to support assertions which require supporting evidence. In the "Special Populations" section the editors wrote, "Epididymal cysts appear in approximately 70% of boys who present as asymptomatic." without including a reference or mention of how this information was retrieved. I believe that the group was able to complete a majority of their goals set initially. The editors accomplished their goal "To add more information to each section such as the causes, treatment, and diagnosis" by creating new relevant sections as epidemiology, risk factors, prevention and screening that contributed to the article's strength. To improve their article further, I believe the editors should complete the correct formatting and referencing of images, and continue to add more secondary sources to support their information.

Part 2: Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

After reviewing references in the article, I found most were freely available through online medical websites (MayoClinic, Clevland Clinic, etc.) or through free academic journals of a low to moderate impact. The online medical websites references are not verifiable and should not be considered a reliable source for use. I would rate the quality of the literature added by the editors to be moderate, with potential to improve by including secondary sources from peer-reviewed academic journals and correcting improper citations. AlecGBarajas (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Group 29 References Review

Our group has reviewed all the references. They are now correctly formatted. TNgo22 reviewed #1-9; Tang Thao reviewed #10-18; TMendoza11 reviewed #19-28; T.Truong UCSF reviewed #29-37
Indicate whether you identified any references from predatory publishers and if so, what steps you took to remove (and/or replace) them
i. e.g., #15 was identified as predatory (InTech Open) and was replaced with a citation to JAMA
ii. e.g., #25 was identified as predatory (OMICS) and the relevant text and citation were removed from the article
Indicate if you identified any duplicate references, and if so, how they were consolidated
i. references 3 and 27 were duplicates; we consolidated the text to refer to reference 3
ii. references 6 and 30 were duplicates; we consolidated the text to refer to reference 6
iii. references 24 and 25 were duplicates; we consolidated the text to refer to reference 24
iv. references 7 and 20 were duplicates; we consolidated the text to refer to reference 7
v. references 21 and 29 were duplicates; we consolidated the text to refer to reference 21 e.g., references 2 and 5 were duplicates; we consolidated all callouts in the text, which now refer to reference 2
vi. references 13 and 14 were duplicates; we consolidated the text to refer to reference 13. No predatory publishers were found. Tang Thao (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)