Talk:Middle ear barotrauma

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Underwater divingWikipedia:WikiProject Underwater divingTemplate:WikiProject Underwater divingUnderwater diving articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Medicine C‑class Low‑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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Middle ear barotrauma (21 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	2,396	2,396
Classification	133	133
Signs and symptoms	299	1,050
Complications	751	751
Causes	227	4,191
Depth changes while diving	1,417	1,417
Use of a hyperbaric chamber	235	235
Rapid decompression or pressurisation of an artificial environment	618	618
Rapid change of altitude	128	128
Self inflicted barotrauma	816	816
Blast-induced barotrauma	444	444
Impact over the external auditory canal	306	306
Mechanism	2,077	2,077
Diagnosis	102	1,088
Differential diagnosis	986	986
Prevention	1,189	1,189
Treatment and management	1,545	1,545
Outcomes	1,073	1,073
Epidemiology	544	544
See also	502	502
References	5,098	5,098
Total	20,886	20,886

Importance as a diving topic

Fairly important, as it is the most common diving related injury, at nearly 50%.(Nofz, Lyndon; Porrett, Jemma; Yii, Nathan; De Alwis, Nadine. "Diving related otological injuries". www1.racgp.org.au. Reprinted from AJGP vol 49, no 8, August 2020 The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners 2020.) There is sufficient literature to easily establish notability, it is mainly a matter of someone getting around to it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

Should be close · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B	The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as `{{cite web}}` is optional. Pass.Y The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Looks OK to me Y The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Looks OK to me. Follows WP:MEDMOS.Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Looks OK to me.Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Some images would be nice but it is not a topic that is conducive to illustration. Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks OK to me, though a couple of items could be clarifiedY

All boxes ticked. Good enough for B-class for WPSCUBA.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]