Talk:Facial trauma

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Facial trauma.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

A fact from Facial trauma appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 October 2008, and was viewed approximately 7,136 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that as many as 50–70% of people who survive traffic accidents have facial injuries (X-ray pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/October.

Wikipedia

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photo?

"1865 photo of a private in the Civil War injured by a shell two years previously" Doesn't look like a photo to me (correct me if I am wrong, it could be my eyesight) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.180.242 (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to comment on the exact same thing. Unless someone can give evidence that it really is a photograph I will probably change it to "illustration" or something similar.Mantisia (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the image itself it's more obviously a photograph - the larger version makes the grainy nature of early photography more obvious.--otherlleft (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't totally sure either, but the flickr page I got it from says it is. 'Illustration' would be fine. delldot ∇. 04:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

Really nice work on this article Delldot. You've outdone yourself once again! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you so much! :D delldot ∇. 04:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radiograph

I'm puzzled by the skull X-ray, I don't clearly recognise the fracture at first sight... might be useful to use an arrow to indicate the fracture(s). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the user of this skull, so to speak, and my skull wasn't fractured when the X-ray was taken. I was just being checked for paranasal sinus problems. Maybe that's why you couldn't recognize the fracture ;) --Mnolf (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! That was a blunder on my part. Thanks for catching that Stevenfruitsmaak, and thanks for clearing it up Mnolf. I had originally found this at blunt trauma, I'll remove it from there too. delldot ∇. 04:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, there's nothing wrong with using an image of an intact skull to illustrate the process of diagnosis - even if a fractured skull would be better... --Mnolf (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]