Talk:Protrusio acetabuli

Medicine 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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 Protrusio acetabuli.

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

Misleading sentences

I think these two sentences from the introduction are ambiguous or misleading:

"The acetabulum is the socket that receives the femoral head to make the hip joint. It is composed of three bones, the ilium, the ischium and the pubis."

It is not clear what the "It" refers to. It cannot be the acetabulum or the femoral head. H Padleckas (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "It is composed of three bones, the ilium, the ischium and the pubis." is not useful for explaining the Protrusio acetabuli condition anyway. ~~I'm taking it out of here.~~ H Padleckas (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced "It" with "The hip bone of the pelvic bone/girdle" instead. H Padleckas (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this page to be difficult to understand. Is it really necessary to describe the condition solely using medical terminology as if this were a med student's text book? Using "proper" medical terminology is fine, but why not also describe it using common English? It seems too often that Wikipedia pages are written for only the experts in the field and not the common reader. That is not what the style manual for medical articles says should be done. Writing for the wrong audience Gnuarm (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]