Contents

Talk:Plantar fasciitis

This article is prone to spam. Please monitor the References and External links sections.

Plantar fasciitis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 1, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Translation High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).

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 Plantar fasciitis. 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

Plantar fasciitis received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Sex is biological and was the sense meant in the lead. Thus restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ordering of content in the lead generally follows that of the body. Thus restored the discussion of the underlying mechanism to paragraph 2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is how does one say "Plantar fasciopathy is a clinical diagnosis" in easier to understand language?[1]

User:TylerDurden8823 what do you think of "The presentation of the symptoms is generally the basis for diagnosis"

"The presence of appropriate signs and symptoms is essential for diagnosis" does not indicate that this is in fact how the diagnosis is made (ie it is generally based on a person's symptoms) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are set on this second one, sure I guess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, I think it does indicate that that is how the diagnosis is made, actually. If you want to change it to say that the presence of appropriate signs and symptoms is required for diagnosis (instead of essential for diagnosis) for clarity, I think that would be fine. I think saying "is generally the basis for diagnosis" reads awkwardly when I say it out loud. Does that address the concern you have about how it's currently written? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't 'calcaneous' be 'calcaneus'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.246.252.97 (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Team, I suggest removal of image named Plantar_Fasciitis_insoles.jpg as it is promotional in nature. Please let me know if this makes sense. Thanks. {{subst:Mandeep.Equatexy|15:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)}}