Talk:Slit lamp

message: Looking at this section where it lists a bunch of diseases it can detect,
I'll start by saying I'm not exactly opposed to this section, but I find it curious that some things have been left out
e.g. blepharitis -- indeed there would be quite a few things that a slit lamp can 'detect' - corneal scarring would be a major one,
,and the idea that Sjrogen's Syndrome can be 'detected' by a slit lamp is bogus to me (I'm not a medical professional). Sjrogen's syndrome is diagnosed by bloodwork and even bloodwork can fail to detect it; a slit lamp will only show that the eye is dry - which would not necessarily immediately mean Sjogrens.
That said, this article, while "nice", isn't very well referenced.
Rfwoolf (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The slit lamp exam may detect many diseases of the eye" 

message: I revised the references (footnotes), partly for clarity and partly to learn how to do it.  While it turned out how I pictured it, I'm not sure I like it.  The endless list of page specific references to the Zeiss overview document seems a little cluttered.  Then again, it does demonstrate that every paragraph was a summary of a credible source.  Opinions?  Brookfield 17:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions on citations? 

message: This whole page is nothing but copied-and-pasted fragments of Zeiss's slit-lamp catalogue. It should be completely redone, or altogether deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commando303 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible Page 

message: "In ophthalmology and optometry, the term 'slit lamp' is the most commonly referred to term however it would be more correct to call it the 'slit lamp instrument'. Today’s instrument however is a combination of two separate developments in instruments. The two developments are the corneal microscope and that of the slit lamp itself."
In order to justify the pedantry "the 'slit lamp instrument'" the author of this sentence tells us the "slit lamp instrument" is a combination of a corneal microscope and a "slit lamp itself". OK. So what's a slit lamp itself? Is there a Wikipedia article that describes a "slit lamp itself" rather than a "slit lamp instrument"? My suggestion is that if you really want to release your inner pedant (and who doesn't) you should make sure that your expository skills are up to the task, otherwise just leave things alone. Remember, every bad edit requires two more good edits to improve the quality of an article — one to correct the bad edit and another make an actual improvement and good edits are rarer than bad edits. 
Everyone who edits a Wikipedia article should ask him/herself why he/she has the expertise and writing skill to make a positive change. Most people don't know anything and fewer still can write coherently so why do you, Editor, feel that you have something to contribute? Do you have any professional or educational or practical qualifications in the subject area, have you ever been paid to teach a class in the subject area, has anybody ever paid you to write anything? If not, be conservative; your first inclination should be to do no harm, to leave the article alone. I refer you to the article by Kruger and Dunning, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, 77(6), 1121-1134. There's a good reason most people don't write for the Encyclopedia Britannica: they're not good enough. For most people, the most effective way to improve the quality of Wikipedia is to leave it just as you found it — errors and all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.243.156 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent Pedantry