Talk:Separated shoulder

message: This page could use an X-ray of a normal shoulder for comparison.  I wouldn't know where to get one though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.229.197 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Wow, I never realized there was a function to post comments, I've always just edited the talk page directly.  Warning: some refs on the page I have never read (because non free and I can't access unless I pay or view at library) but I have read the abstracts.  As with all articles on wikipedia, take the information given witha grain of salt. Root4(one) 21:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more refs and minor revisions added. 

message: Most of this page is a result of my original research.  Although this has been said previously in the discuss page, because I haven't gotten any response so far, (and I think this page is a topic worth discussion) I decided to raise the Experts Wanted Banner.  I suspect most of the data is accurate, but then again, I only have my opinion as a judge.  Root4(one) 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input, but that constitutes OR and is subjective, based upon ONE instance. I've also separated my shoulder, but don't have insurance or money to pay for surgery. My story is opposite yours, but again, is OR and unwelcome, for good reason in Wikipedia. To permit OR would be to permit Bigfoot, Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster cavorting in one's living room in your UFO base home in Antarctica, in short, a farce, not an encyclopedia. As Wikipedia seeks to be encyclopedic in nature, OR is rejected, cited sources accepted.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts wanted! 

message: The following corrections should be made to the article to improve its content. 
There is no epidemiological data (eg. Prevalence). This will provide a broader context for the injury, and possibly show how it may (if applicable) be correlated to other injuries.
Risk factors are not present in this article. By adding risk factors, the reader is provided with a capsular view of the problem as a whole, rather than simply a diagnostic tool.
When writing an informative article about a health problem and/or disorder, prevention plays a significant role. Without providing prevention, in addition to the risk factors it is simply erroneous medical data.
The following are positive points of this article.
The detail used in describing the condition is exceptional. Detail is important to clarify not only the prime factors that classify the condition, but also that which differentiate it from other similar conditions.
In the Surgical treatment section, the comments about follow-up events and actions are quite useful. If one who was injured was to have surgery, this section would be a great source of general information to assist the person in knowing what to expect after surgery.
The classification portion of this article has been well developed. It provides the lay person with the knowledge that there indeed are differences between variations in break sites.
NHearn (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review comments, May 9, 2012

message: Reads "^ An examination using radiography (a type of medical imaging) will show up as normal" talking about a Type I separation.  The reference link is being used to provide a footnote, which isn't how you're supposed to use it.
Rufwork (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Ref 3 is a footnote

message: It looks like the Type 3 classification image is rerouting to Type 2. A quick search suggests Type 3 wasn't uploaded.
That is, two images from the article's Gallery tag, duplicated below, currently depict and link to the same image of a Type 2 dislocation. Wikipedia's back end seems to reroute the link to the nonexistent Type 3 to a "closest match" of the Type 2.
Classification type 2 of AC separation.png|Classification type 2
Classification type 3 of AC separation.png|Classification type 3
Rufwork (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of Type 3 classification doesn't exist

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Separated shoulder. 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/20061109224128/http://www.worldortho.com/database/abstracts/u_limb/bjerneld.html to http://www.worldortho.com/database/abstracts/u_limb/bjerneld.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109224136/http://www.worldortho.com/database/abstracts/u_limb/larsen.html to http://www.worldortho.com/database/abstracts/u_limb/larsen.html
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) 01:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi  I just did a little work on this article using paraphrased evidence from the background section and (weak) conclusions from a 2019 Cochrane Review on surgery versus conservative approach. I just looked at the history and noticed all the work that you did in October! It is great. Please let me know if I have made any mistakes or if you have additional suggestions. JenOttawa (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: answered on your talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent improvements