Talk:Omphalitis of newborn

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.

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 Omphalitis of newborn.

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

Peer review UCSF WP elective 2014

Great lead! Very informative, interesting, and easy to read, with sources for each fact. Ktteli (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For signs and symptoms, you might consider moving the cellulitis link to within the description to make it "(redness, warmth, swelling, pain|cellulitis)" so that it links to the cellulitis page based on the descriptors for cellulitis rather than on the "infection" key word.Ktteli (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the "Causes" section could benefit from some more sources to back up some statements, such as the common bacterial culprits. But very nice to have a separate section to quickly scan for and find what the common causes are! Ktteli (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the Prevention and Treatment sections would greatly benefit from adding sources. Despite the need for sources, the prevention section does a nice job of balancing a variety of opinions. Ktteli (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great epidemiology section, full of information and interesting facts. Again, this section would greatly benefit from citations that could link readers to the original source for this information. If each sentence could have a link to the original paper or book source(s), that would really strengthen the article. Ktteli (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]