Talk:Blunt trauma

message: Milepost Date
Mon 12/3
WP-WIP #1
Post work plan
Tues 12/11
WP-WIP #2
Thorax and Cranial Sections Complete
Fri 12/14 
WP-WIP #3 
Extremity and Pelvic Section Research complete, Editing Begun. 
Mon 12/17 
WP-WIP #4 
All Classification Subsections Complete. Peer Reviews Complete 
Fri 12/21 
Course Wrap-up 
Response to Peer Review Complete. Other Heading Sections Fully rounded out. 
<B>Article chosen?</B> 
Blunt Trauma 
Initial Analysis of the article 
Missing Sections according to WP:MEDMOS, Considerable space to expand on Classifications. Unsure if Cause, Sign/symptom, mechanism, prevention/screening are appropriate to include. 
Overall organization, what changes 
Add Epi, Special Populations, Outcomes, Expand Classifications considerably. 
<B>What will you add?</B> 
Great detail into classifications, SVG’s, rough notes on epi, outcome, special populations as available via review articles 
<B>What will you remove?</B> 
Nothing, start pages are already pretty sparse
<B>What will you augment?</B>
Classifications 
<B>What will you decrease coverage of?</B>
Nothing
Possible roles include:
•	Overseer/amalgamator/reconciler
•	Readability editor
•	Researcher
•	Editor/writer-what sections will each do?
•	Linker, for groups of 4 consider some one who will check the articles linked to make sure that the linked material is sufficient and accurate
•	Images/graphics
•	Other?
NP=Niko Pascua JR=Jay Roever 
Classifications:
•	Cranial: JR
•	Thorax: NP
•	Pelvis: JR
•	Extremities: NP
Epidemiology, Outcomes, Special Populations: NP & JR
Team coordination plan:
Options might include, regular team meetings, sharing calendars, setting up a place to keep your work in order to edit collaboratively (this might be the sandbox, or it might be Box or DropBox or Slack, or other)
Asynchronous FB messenger/ Text. Calendar sharing. 
WIP presenter
We would like this duty to rotate or to be done by team members in collaboration
=== Peer Review for UCSF Wiki Elective ===
It seems like you guys have made great progress on this page so far! I really like the structure, with a breakdown of the types of blunt trauma within each broad group. It seems like the readership is meant more for the treatment team than the patient/family, so if that is an intentional choice, well done! I think it could easily be shifted to suit (1) both audiences well by having a more basic/introductory "mini-lead" within each section before getting into the technical info, or (2) patient/family readers by using everyday words whenever possible and adding short, explanatory snippets to medical words that can't be avoided. Otherwise, I feel like it's well-written, and I know everything I need to know about the topics covered from reading this page.
Some more specific suggestions: 
*Lead section: consider adding the "non-penetrating" caveat to the first sentence instead of leaving it at the end of the paragraph.
*Classification section: consider renaming this to "Overview" or "Types of Blunt Trauma". I feel like this section covers so much more than classification. I also think the section would really benefit from images (of interventions used) and/or tables (to better explain life-threatening complications). *Images added
*Diagnosis section: I would consider replacing the SAMPLE sentences with a summary of history/physical (maybe add first and second scans). It just seems too in the weeds for a page on specifically blunt trauma. *Added language regarding first and second scans
Finally, overall, it seems like there are plenty of references, but the citations aren't being used enough. I think it's totally okay, even preferred, to cite a good source more than once. It would be nice if, after I read a statistic or  about how to manage blunt trauma, I could see citation link at the end of the sentence. *Increased references
Alrighty, hope this was helpful!
--Khemphill1 (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan for editing through UCSF Wikiproject Medicine 

message: It seems like you guys have made great progress on this page so far! I really like the structure, with a breakdown of the types of blunt trauma within each broad group. It seems like the readership is meant more for the treatment team than the patient/family, so if that is an intentional choice, well done! I think it could easily be shifted to suit (1) both audiences well by having a more basic/introductory "mini-lead" within each section before getting into the technical info, or (2) patient/family readers by using everyday words whenever possible and adding short, explanatory snippets to medical words that can't be avoided. Otherwise, I feel like it's well-written, and I know everything I need to know about the topics covered from reading this page.
Some more specific suggestions: 
*Lead section: consider adding the "non-penetrating" caveat to the first sentence instead of leaving it at the end of the paragraph.
*Classification section: consider renaming this to "Overview" or "Types of Blunt Trauma". I feel like this section covers so much more than classification. I also think the section would really benefit from images (of interventions used) and/or tables (to better explain life-threatening complications). *Images added
*Diagnosis section: I would consider replacing the SAMPLE sentences with a summary of history/physical (maybe add first and second scans). It just seems too in the weeds for a page on specifically blunt trauma. *Added language regarding first and second scans
Finally, overall, it seems like there are plenty of references, but the citations aren't being used enough. I think it's totally okay, even preferred, to cite a good source more than once. It would be nice if, after I read a statistic or  about how to manage blunt trauma, I could see citation link at the end of the sentence. *Increased references
Alrighty, hope this was helpful!
--Khemphill1 (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for UCSF Wiki Elective 

message: Great article! The classification section is thorough and well written. I agree with Kafi's peer view, especially that the target audience seems to be directed towards health professionals both in content and in readability. To increase readability, I suggest shortening sentences and simplifying some words e.g. indicate -> show. Also, there are occasional uses of "the patient," which the WikiMoS recommends against. Lastly, I would increase the number of links, this will help with the medical jargon. I added some links - feel free to reject those changes.
Specifics:
Blunt Thoracic Trauma
*Remove "put simply," in the opening sentence . I think it adds the writers opinion to an article that should be neutral. 
*Add example for shear force.
*Should the last paragraph be under Treatment?
Blunt Cranial Trauma
*Needs citations. 
*Do you need the 'see also' link to TBI in the beginning when you discuss it (and link to it) later on in that section?
Diagnosis
*What constitutes 'obviously trivial injuries'?
*I think you could introduce ATLS earlier in this section as the guideline for blunt trauma management
*The section on sports may be too niche for this section.  Possibly add under BAT in Classification? Or shorten sentence to last 2 sentences and remove heading.
Treatment
*I think you could expand this section with some examples of interventions based on injury location.
Random
*The FAST is described two different ways in the article. I think the description under Diagnosis is more generally accessible. 
Jhastie9 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for UCSF Wiki Elective - JH 

message: Just like to say that the grammar, information and overall wiki-style of this article is really great! Keep up the good work, it's really good to see the medical articles on the wikipedia expand, including those on medical diagnosis. Well done! JCraw 12:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brilliant Grammar on this article! 

message: The x-ray image of the male human skull that is the first picture on this excellently worded article has suffered some sort of massive blunt trauma to the face.  What exactly happened?  Vedek Wren 21:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture 

message: I need to find a review about the long term potential complications of blunt abdominal trauma and hemoperitoneum.  Can you help?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.214.50 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long term complications from blunt force abdominal trauma and hemoperitoneum 

message: Can someone clarify the use of notes and references for me, please.
It appears to confuse the numbering of citations in "Blunt Abdominal Trauma".
I'm really not clear on the use of notes, unless it is just a development tool.
Thanks for the help. --Mdscottis (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes and References 

message: Not really interesting or useful to mention the apparent situation in one particular country. No evidence is given that treatment typically follows the ACS guidelines and the reference to that is a dead link. I'll delete this part, feel free to restore it while giving sound arguments for doing so. At least wording should be improved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.179.75.18 (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: Why this one?  Include WP rating scale? How does this fit with your interests? Other details as desired
I have selected the “Blunt trauma” article as my focus because of my interest in pursuing a general surgery residency. General surgeons are frequently involved in the comprehensive care of blunt trauma patients and my own understanding of what blunt force trauma entails is limited. Moreover, the topic of “blunt trauma” contains a wide spectrum of information that the current state of this article only begins to explore, specifically in the area of treatment options, outcomes, and long-term complications.
Current rating: Start-class, high-importance, within the scope of the WikiProject Medicine Group and WikiProject Death group. 
Initial Analysis of the article
The initial explanation and breakdown of blunt force trauma are promising, but there is room for improvement regarding topic and subtopic organization and depth of topics explored. The article's overall impact could be significantly increased with a few minor organizational changes and more expansive discussions on certain topics. 
Overall organization, what changes
The overall organization of the article flows in a logical way. I do not think adjustments need to be made. However, I would like to change the title of this article to "Blunt Force Trauma" and remove the link to the current "Blunt Force Trauma" page with no information. 
What will you add?
I would like to expand on the treatment section, particularly emphasizing surgical techniques tailored to specific types of blunt trauma. As it stands, the treatment section lacks specificity and does not delve into the diverse surgical approaches required for the effective treatment of blunt force trauma affecting various anatomical locations. 
What will you remove?
Because this article is rated as a “Start,” I think adding information and improving the structure/flow is more valuable than removing existing content.
What will you augment?
I think it would be beneficial to expand the section discussing abdominal blunt force trauma by incorporating subsections dedicated to specific organs and potential complications arising from blunt trauma to these organs. 
What will you decrease coverage of?
Again, given that this article is currently rated “Start,” I think the primary focus should be on expanding and enhancing content rather than removing or decreasing coverage of any information.  Uofumedstu (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan for editing: UUSOM Wikiproject Medicine 

message: — Assignment last updated by Leximed (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: BioC 7210 - Wikipedia Editing for Health Care Professionals