Citation analysis consistent with the critique of the IP editor I have no longstanding or longterm interest in contributing to the quality of the article but have a strong interest in seeing broad general improvements in the sourcing of scientific articles including those in the common space between social and biological sciences And I have an interest in seeing IP editors treated well by the majority of us not the few The recent visiting IP editor was so set upon by more experienced editors that I thought I would perform a first pass rough draft evaluation of this article strictly from the perspective of evaluating its sources The goals in doing this are three 1 To allow us to come to consensus as to the quality of the article at least in terms of verifiable information though for this scientist and for purists such as myself and NeilN it is likely that if sources should come out content must also 2 To identify patterns of problems so particular individuals with time and desire might address them e g incomplete therefore unverifiable entries poor specific sources for particular blocks of information varyingly formatted similar sources and repeat sources making source followup difficult etc and 3 To create a list of first issues to address so that there might be a common set of priorities i e where the list below might in months to come be sprinkled with markers In doing this I am applying the same academic standards as I might have in reviewing a paper submission from a sixth form or older student on into university This is the sort of thing that while scholarly so we might each might differ on the details of the analysis all might agree to the trends represented and all might have arrived at the same perception within minutes reviewing the article references and have accomplished a full first pass evaluation in an hour or so That is we can see for ourselves instead of taking the a priori position that all is fine enough to remain or insisting a new editor argue her or his case thoroughly and decisively to more seasoned Wikipedia hands After having done this evaluation I have come to the conclusion that the article weaknesses referred to by the IP editor appear to be substantiated From the persecutive of reliability of information based on expectation of high quality and verifiable secondary sources suited to the content I conclude that the article is in very poor condition After reviewing this summary of the state of this article s sources see if you might not agree Here in bullet form are cogent observations from the evaluation of the article s sourcing 70 references to 12 or more undergraduate textbooks as sources rather than the scholarly secondary or tertiary sources drawn upon by those texts see more below 70 references to books that appear without page numbers King 2008 and King 2009 47 refs Buss Crain 5 Boccadoro 2 Fausto Sterling Rathus 3 Russon Farrell Coon 2 Escoffier Al islam org Stearns Major Patterns Stearns Sexuality 6 Greene 47 36 plus 11 references to the same undergraduate textbook King 2008 and 2009 in two entries all appearing without page numbers More than a half dozen books lacking full citations particularly date of publication e g King Buss Stearns Major Patterns Stearns Sexuality but also other obscured details e g David Weeks Secrets of the Superyoung Berkley is actually D Weeks J James 1999 Secrets of the superyoung The scientific reasons some people look ten years younger than they really are and how you can too New York Villard Books etc Long articles 20 pp without narrowing part of article sourced via Section name or page number e g Ross Freud Nagel Lee et al CDC Nonsense page references e g Kim Ward Many bare URLs or URL only citations without links find articles com enotes com TheAge com au etc Multiple 8 references to dead links facts org psychnews psychiatryonline org eehow com etc Many egregiously inappropriate web based sources including innerbody com about com essortment com howstuffworks com proplusmedical com male enhancement sales page eehow com TheAge com au etc Many further web based sources for which there are clearly better scholarly sources available see appearances of Csongradi oxytocin innerbody com about com essortment com e g on Skinner CNN com and HuffPost on G spot validity howstuffworks com proplusmedical com cwluherstory org as source of Anne Koedt article jrank org eehow com TheAge com au pop religious web pages for seriou