Talk:Ludwig's angina

message: * Lead: The lead is a bit long but does a good job at giving an overview on the subject. The infobox is also well done.
* Content: The content covers everything you'd want to know about the subject. I would suggest including links to other wiki articles, for instance in Signs and symptoms, adding wiki links to words like "bilateral" "submandibular" etc... The treatment section is awesome.
* Tone and balance: Tone is appropriate and unbiased
* Sources and references: The majority of the sources were from public, well-known sources.
* Overall the article is easy to read, and does a good job at covering all bases regarding the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilerman (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. ---kilbad (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article categorization 

message: The article stated "Ludwig's angina is also associated with body piercing of hte lingual frenulum" with 3 sources. These sources all seem to be referring to a single reported case: . A see also link was also present linking to a tongue piercing page. Based upon the single reported case, I do not think it is appropriate to say there is an association and place a see also link. I have reworded this sentence to state that there has only been a single case and removed the see also link. Another option would be to remove this content entirely on grounds of UNDUE and NOTABILITY. Lesion (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tongue piercing associated with ludwig's angina? 

message: These are not synonymous terms. A unilateral and minor infection of the submandibular space would not be called Ludwig's angina, which by definition is a rapidly progressive cellulitis which is bilateral. Lesion (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does [[submandibular space infection]] redirect here? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ludwig's angina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714075709/http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=r27v180337138257&size=largest to http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=r27v180337138257&size=largest
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I worked this page over some last night -- it needs a bunch more work.
Overall it has veered into becoming a technical manual or textbook which is not OK per the policy, WP:NOTMANUAL/WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.  Please also see the general guidance, WP:TECHNICAL and WP:AUDIENCE.   Technical language is of course fine, where it is necessary, and then should be explained but this page is still full of full-on highly technical writing, much of which is not necessary. 
Further, the section on pathological anatomy had nothing to do with this condition per se and is WP:OFFTOPIC. I do understand that a textbook would include this content but this is hot how we write about diseases/conditions in Wikipedia.
WP:MEDMOS was written and has developed to help editors working on these topics follow general community policies and guidelines when they work on content about health. Please do review it. 
Also in this diff, a predatory publisher was cited.  We do not use sources like that. Please do see WP:MEDRS. 
In the same diff, the formatting of the citations was poor, and punctuation was added after refs instead of poor.  Things kinds of things are discussed in WP:MEDHOW, which you might find it helpful to review. 
Happy to discuss further. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes