Talk:Facial trauma

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)