Talk:Flexion test

Reorganizing the article
I am a UW student working on a English class project to contribute to a Wikipedia article. I hope to help this page by adding content and sources including a discussion on gait evaluation and grading lameness as they relate to flexion tests. I would also like to further explain what happens after a nerve block if subsequent flexion tests are performed and what the results might indicate. I also think it would be worthwhile to talk more about the diagnostic importance of the test and how heavily the results should be relied upon. Any feedback or editing is welcome as I am still getting used to working on Wikipedia. Vulpecula Rubra (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Terrific! I'd be glad to help you out, your project sounds well worthwhile.  Basically, the number one thing to do is to add solid, reliable sources. See WP:RS and WP:V.  Because this is a veterinary medicine article, the best sources are those from peer-reviewed journals, but even good solid laypeople's sources such as The Horse magazine (http://www.thehorse.com) can be a good starting place.  (Most of the time, articles in The Horse have a reference to a scientific journal article).  The other thing to do is to think about images, they have to be submitted under a free license (either public domain or the GDFL-CC licenses that allow anyone to use the image for any purpose for free, though you can ask that they credit the author), and most of the time, if I can't find a free image easily on Wikimedia Commons or the free-use images of the US Government (occasionally they have some) or on Flickr (you can search only for CC-licensed images, which can then be imported to Commons), I usually just wait for an opportunity to take them myself, then I can upload them with any license I want.   Montanabw (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be posting my changes shortly and would appreciate some feedback. I'm not sure if 'Specificity' is the best heading for the first section but I can't think of anything more appropriate at the moment. I'd also like to continue working on the 'Usefulness' section by finding another source to back up the one I'm currently using. Other than that, I'll start looking for a relevant image to include on the page.Vulpecula Rubra (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review
Really great work on the article! It's very well organized, and I understood it quite well despite my lack of background on the subject. Nice job with the headings, subheadings, etc. I think that "Specificity" is a good heading for that section...however, since you also reference false positives, maybe "Accuracy" would be more inclusive? Either way, I think it works well. Laineejean (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)