Talk:Breast reconstruction

message: Hi, Wikipedian.  I'm a fourth year medical student at Medical University of South Carolina who will be editing this article over the next few weeks as part of a medical writing elective course that I'm taking.  I plan on using the breast augmentation article as an exemplar (B-class, mid-importance rating) and will adhere to the wikiproject medicine manual of style. I will be working on improve the entire article, updating it with the latest information, and adjusting the language to make it more accessible to a lay audience while still preserving the scientific/medical detail.  Please reach out to me with any recommendations, comments, or critiques.  I look forward to working with anyone who has an interest in improving this article.
Sections to Prioritize: Timing; Techniques
Resources for Basic Information: Neligan's Plastic Surgery: Volume 1: Principles & Volume 5: Breast; Neligan's Core Procedures in Plastic Surgery; Munhoz's Atlas of Reconstructive Breast Surgery
Project Timeline:
* Week 1 (11/18/19-11/22/19) - read background information; identify additional resources; determine the need for new article sections
* Week 2 (11/25/19-11/29/19) - continue to read; take notes on info in resources; begin article edits
* Week 3 (12/2/19-12/6/19) - complete online edits of article in preparation for peer review
* Week 4 (12/9/19-12/13/19) - receive peer & wikicommunity feedback; incorporate feedback into the article, making changes where necessary
If there are any specific recommendations or changes that you all would like to see incorporated, please let me know, and I will prioritize those as well.  Thanks!
--Paj204 (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: MUSC Wikipedia Editing Medicine Elective

message: I'm new to wikipedia but a long-time advocate of plain-langauge in engineering (my field), medicine (my wife's) and law (which I interact with).  If we are talking about HUMANS, when is  "contralateral", (e.g. "of the affected breast and also the contralateral side") a better word choice than "other"?  Dogs, hamsters, etc, I grant might have use for the term "contralateral breast".  But for the vast majority of women and men dealing with breast health issues, "other" is just as precise and much more accessible.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.39.40 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm

message: I'm new and would like to flesh out this entry (pun intended).  Do I just do it?--Islandtyger 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm

message: This article doesn't discuss breast reconstruction. It seems to discuss the history of implants. We already have an article on breast implants. Shouldn't we actually discuss reconstruction in this article? —Frecklefoot 03:35, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I vote we merge the information from here into breast implant and then delete this article.... unless someone actually wants to write about reconstructive surgery. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:30, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article focus

message: It's been suggested by an anonymous editor that the federal statute re. insurance coverage is commonly known as "Janet's Law" after Janet Franquet. As someone who actually deals with this issue on a day to day basis, I can tell you that it just is factually incorrect to assert that it's is commonly referred to in that context and if you refer to medical or surgical textbooks which touch on this, absent is any mention of the political context. Now you can google this and find mention of ms. franquet on tertiary sources, if you refer to authoritative sites like the Federal DOJ page, the American Cancer Society, and other sites dealing with breast cancer, any reference to her is absent. Mention of it is just peripheral errata to the existence of the law itself and the practical consequences of the legislation. Droliver 02:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Janet's law 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20150329092016/http://drsonderman.com:80/breast/direct-to-implant-breast-reconstruction/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I have been assigned to peer review this article for a wiki Project Medicine course. The recent edits were to focus on timing and types of reconstruction. I believe the article to focus on these. Organization is very easy to follow. The article answers may question I would have about and implant based procedure. The information is succinct and easy to follow. There are many strong sources used for the article but there is a paragraph that seems to be lacking a bit in this area. Though the information is sound in the timing section using some resources to validate the information would be a good change to the article. I believe since wikipedia is a community setting that the previous information where it states "citation needed" is appropriately noted. This allows the reader to know that though the information may be sound it need a proven source. 
The language used in the article is easy to understand and reads as a narrative on implant based reconstruction. There are numerous helpful images and graphics to demonstrate ideas presented in the article. I believe the focus of this article edit was accomplished. My only suggestion would be expanding on possible statistics in the shift from delayed to early reconstruction. This may add some back ground information and numbers that also support the claim within the article not just in the sources that are cited. Overall I believe the components that my classmate worked on in this article are well thought out and executed. Thank you. 
--Lesmpremd (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review