Talk:Phlegmasia cerulea dolens

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.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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 Phlegmasia cerulea dolens.

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2021 and 27 February 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Beckgold. Peer reviewers: Medicalcomm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Work Plan

Hello! Here is my work plan for this page:

Mon 2/1

-Familiarize myself with dashboard

-Make wikipedia account

Tues 2/2

-Meet with team to discuss logistics

-Brainstorm topics

-Do wiki trainings

Tues 2/9

-have all resources compiled

-start editing my page

Tues 2/16

-have my article finishes

-start peer review process

Tues 2/23

-finish peer review

-respond to peer review

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckgold (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of this article: Excellent. Succinctly describes the condition. Helpful that you provided a similar sounding diagnosis to avoid confusion. Lay public may not know what “venous outflow” is.

Consider switching so epidemiology section comes before the etiology section. Can maybe describe more about PE risk in the pathophysiology section. The links out to other wikipedia pages are very helpful too.

Appropriately referenced -great bibliography!

Really clear heading and sub-headings. Great balance of detail with overview.

I learned a lot reading this article. It gave a very clear road map of objective information that would be useful to a variety of readers. Consider changing some language to avoid medical jargon. Medicalcomm (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]