- I found your article very informative even though it was very concise and to the point. I also really enjoyed how you added a few extra sections that help better explain the condition.
- You made good use of adding cites to external pages, as well as citing your sources!
- Make sure you don't forget the current research section! Although there might not be any research specifically, maybe you can discuss something related to this condition. Also, you can maybe look for a real life situation? I think that would be interesting to add and you can relate it to everything you discussed.
- Since the human body of a child and an adult have different healing times, maybe you can discuss a little bit more about the difference between an injury in a child versus in an adult. I think this would make your article more well-rounded and make it more applicable to different populations.
- Just a style thing, but I would bullet point the list of symptoms you wrote after the main paragraph so that it is easier to read as a list rather than as a sentence.
--Anicolaie (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Andreea Nicolaie 11/13/2020
- You are missing the mechanism/pathophysiology, diagnosis, epidemiology, and research directions sections.
- The information about the condition appearing more in children that is in the abstract can be apart of the epidemiology section.
- The link for mucoperichondrium in the Anatomy section does not exist.
- I like that you included a home remedies section under treatment!
Desireeaustin (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Overall your article was concise and very informative to audience.
- The section of home remedies is not appropriate on the Wikipedia due to it is not a page to recommend something to people. Perhaps you may just mention it in the treatment options.
- If there is some real picture of hematoma or more exact images, it would be great.
- Pathophysiology or physiology sections are missed.
Khulan G (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is A LOT of direct copying from sources here. That is plagiarism, even if you cite the source. If this is not well and thoroughly addressed, wikipedia will not accept it and you will receive a 0 for any section in which I find it. If more than half your sections have it, you will receive a 0 for the entire article.
- Each paragraph should have at least one citation.
- There are places where you could make this more lay accessible. Use technical terms when they are the only correct terms, but link to them and/or define them. Otherwise, if you can use simpler terms, you should do so.
- Nothing should be in second person. This is an encyclopedia article, not a guide for patients or doctors. Similarly, nothing should be in future tense or written as instructions. This is about what people do and experience.
- You've got a good start in linking to other wikipedia articles, but this could benefit from a lot more linking.
- You might consider making your symptoms lists bulleted for clarity.
- Looking at comments from above: having the home remedies section is great, but make sure that it is abstract, not written as guidance or instructions.
- Missing recent research, epidemiology, and mechanisms sections.
- This is going to need a lot of work to be an acceptable article. I encourage you to come see me for help.