Talk:Intracranial hemorrhage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page. |
| Start | This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| Start | This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale |
Contents |
[edit] The
The original editing comment on this article is Intracranial hemorrhage diagnosis by CT but the article was titled Intracranial hemorrhage. This may explain the emphasis of the article. RJFJR 03:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is a problem that it seems to assume you know what an Intracranial hemorrhage is, before beginning to read the article. And the fact that the disclaimer at the bottom indicates it's for medical students or doctors. RJFJR 03:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In spite of the disclaimer I can't find evidence of copyvio on google (but I'm not an expert on locating such evidence) RJFJR 03:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Couldn't find a copyvio via Google either, so just touched up a bit. Needs more editing. Alex.tan 06:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Too technical
I removed this material because it seems too technical.
First, basic principles: Normal brain tissue has CT numbers of about 30 HU (white matter) to about 40 HU (gray matter). Acute blood had a density of about 80-100 HU. With time, a collection of blood will become less dense, passing through a phase where it is isodense with brain tissue, and either becomes an area of encephalomalacia (density equal to CSF, or about 0 HU) or calcifies, and becomes heteregeneous and extremely dense (>200 HU).
If we're going to put it back we should re-write it in a clearer manner. RJFJR 16:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Redundancy
I think we should move detail about epidural and other subtypes into their respective pages and just leave a blurb about each one and a link. No reason to have the same material duplicated on this page. I just wrote the intra-axial and intraparenchymal pages and moved the detail about those from here to there. Hope no one minds. Delldot 05:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Take off cleanup tag?
I've been working on the page and I wonder if the cleanup tag should come off. The page still needs work, but most of the too technical material is gone. I dunno if it merits the cleanup tag any more. As I see it, since there are pages on each type of intracranial hemorrhage, this page should be brief and just have links to those pages. Other opinions?
Also, is it cool to use the same images on two pages, as I've done with the subdural hemorrhage picture? --Delldot 22:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it's now good enough for the cleaup tag to come off. Thank you so much for everything you added. And there's no problem with using the same image more than once -- most of the anatomy pages recycle a few scanned images from Gray's Anatomy. A repeated relevant image is far better than no image at all. --Arcadian 15:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
