Talk:Testicular torsion

message: I'm very uncomfortable with this statement.  First, not all testes are completely and obviously infarcted at exploration.  Removing the testes clearly removes all hope of recovery, there and then. Second, there won't be moist or wet gangrene.  Both the arterial AND venous blood flow is cut off - the testis mummifies. In fact, that's how you know it's dead clinically - it shrinks in size progressively. Third, in Pubmed, removal for gangrene was not mentioned in 450 citations.
I think the sentence should be removed. It doesn't effect the rest of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdscottis (talk • contribs) 17:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once the testicle is dead it must be surgically removed to prevent gangrene infection 

message: Now the article is for the human disorder, only. Could someone, please, add some information about whether it is possible for other mammals to have this condition, also. -- 85.76.73.183 (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add a section at the and for "Other animals" if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiology 

message: Hi Quinnjkg,
You and Andresprk have done some great work with this article!  A few overall thoughts and then a tabular listing of criteria that our class agreed on at the start of the course.
First, I am impressed by how well-written the article is overall.  The lead section is written with language that would be easily understandable to a layperson and while there is more clinical language used deeper in the article the link-outs and in-text explanations are appropriate.  Your sources are appropriate, the organization makes sense and I especially like the summary table at the top of the article.  I would suggest trying to find anatomical drawings or other illustrations to help readers understand the anatomy discussed in the pathophysiology section (hopefully that lead we discussed in the in-class discussion could be used).  Also, I suggest including links for the complications paragraph and considering a prose format for that section to remain consistent with the rest of the article.  Overall, a very informative and helpful article!  
Header text                      	Header text
Readability                      	Lead section is understandable to the lay reader.  More technical language used (especially medical and anatomical terms ie tunia vaginalis and epididymitis) but, as above, use of links and in-text explanations are appropriate.
Target Readership                	Targeted to lay reader.  Use of clinical terms is necessary and I don't think you can avoid them and still maintain an accurate description of the disease process.
Citation quality                 	Excellent.  Most articles cited are review articles with full text available through subscription though a few are free.  Is it possible to include a link to the cited chapter in Tintinalli's (source 13)?  Also, for source 14 (Lavallee, Cash) is it possible to have the link go to a full article instead of an abstract only? When I look, I find a publisher login page. Not sure if this article can be found in full but the abstract, I feel, is appropriate for the article's usage in your Wikipedia page (radionuclide scintigraphy).
Overall Organization             	Appropriate and easy to understand.  Suggest considering prose format instead of bullet points for the complications paragraph to maintain consistent formatting.
Pictures and Media               	I like the image in the summary table at the top of the page.  If possible (and as above), try to include anatomical drawings or images for the pathophysiology section as I believe this could greatly help with comprehension.
Links                            	Seems appropriate.  Suggestions: 1) link out to epididymitis earlier in the page, under 'signs and symptoms' instead of lower down under 'diagnosis' 2) link out to 'necrosis' for usage of the word "necrotic" in the pathophys section 3) link out to 'embryo' for usage of the word "embryonic" in the pathophys section
Avoiding doctor-speak            	Language is appropriate, as above.
US-centric idioms                	Do not appear to be an issue.
Small grammar/editing suggestions	1) Lead section - "Cold temperatures may also be a risk factor" - suggest saying outright "risk factor of testicular torsion" to avoid ambiguity. 2) Lead section last paragraph - suggest "In children" instead of "of children" 3) Signs/Symptoms - suggest specifying that the normal function of the cremasteric reflex is elevation of the testicle. 4) In 1st paragraph of pathophysiology, "degree of arterial and venous obstruction depends" ON not OF. 5) See also section - "epididymitis - can cause of"
Poseysfriend (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: As noted above, really good job with this article, a lot of good additions, sources, and writing. Much of the article has really good readiblility and avoidance of jargon, especially the signs and symptoms section and treatment, but there are a few places where that could be improved (I am a fan of always looking to improve that). You use many links for the complicated words, which is a great way to use the words and still have someone figure out the meaning, but possibly working to avoid those words in the first place could decrease the amount that someone has to define as they read this article. Words such as cryptorchidisim,  technetium-99m pertechnetate, etc. For example, the following sentance: "In this condition, rather than the testes attaching posteriorly to the inner lining of the scrotum by the mesorchium, the mesorchium terminates early and the testis is free floating in the tunica vaginalis." Instead is there a way to describe the bell-clapper deformity by using general terms, describing it as a malformation of a single structure that allows the testis to be free floating within the scrotum as opposed to securely anchoring within the scrotum. Also instead of linking to Prehn's sign, possibly describing what it is (if it is a classic physical finding) in the paragraph could be useful, even if it isn't the most reliable physical exam finding.
Overall organization makes it easy to follow, and the content is well sourced.
Jjcubs92 (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional peer review 

message: This page has been vandalized with some nonsense about Scarlet Johansson etc. 
I just spent TEN MINUTES looking for an EASY WAY to report vandalism on a page and COULD NOT find an answer.
I suppose all article readers are assumed to be tech savvy enough to FIX the issue themselves? 
That’s ABSURD.
Why doesn’t each Wiki page have a SIMPLE way to report vandalism ? 
Like a link, or button, or option under “Edit”? 
Anyway, I found it, and reported it on this Talk page. Someone please fix it.
Thank you. WB (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi ! Vandalism was reverted just over 2 hours after it occurred. The easiest way to revert vandalism is to click on "View history", find the edit, and click "undo". Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page HAS BEEN VANDALIZED! 

message: Does exist any way to prevent this? Does the pregnant can eat something? Thanks!--186.61.223.54 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi ! I'm afraid that I don't understand your query about the article. The article already includes content about risk factors. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevent