Talk:Erythema nodosum

Picture?
Is the picture really showing an usual erythema nodosum? In my dermatology-book as well as in the google-picture-search the erythema nodosum looks quite different! greetings, --138.232.228.41 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The picture is not typical of erythema nodosum. Recommend deleting and replacing.

The picture is actually flat out wrong. Even the caption does not indicate the correct disorder, if you click the link. I've had Erythema Nodosum several times, and that is not at all what it looks like, nor where it is likely to occur on the body. The swellings are usually over 10 centimeters wide, and there is no blistering or breakage of the skin. They are entirely subcutaneous. They occur most often on the legs, ankles, feet, and sometimes arms. There are excellent pictures available in the dermatology database online... Thanks, Leha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.113.59 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The picture should be changed Roidna (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This article should be reviewed. The image seems wrong.
 * I was told I had textbook erythema nodosum on my calves and ankles (so much so that the doctor went and got a nurse to show her what it looks like) and my largest swellings were only a maximum of three or four centimetres wide. It might well be proportional to the size of the affected area - I have short, skinny legs and a 10cm wide swelling would be larger than my knee, but on other people would cover a much smaller area, proportionally. -- Dandelions, not logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.19.84 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This article seems quite good
I've been reading medical literature in books and journals for about 45 years. From that perspective, this article strikes me as excellent. I don't know about the photo, but the description and the discussion seems both informative and thorough. What exactly needs to be improved?

More generally, the whole assessment "culture" baffles me. Typically I find assessments to be unrelated to the quality of the articles to which they are attached.

Further, if an article is assessed and then extensively modified, the new version, for an unknown period, still carries the old assessment. At the very least assessments should carry and display dates indicating when the assessment was created and the last time it was updated.

Overall, as things stand now (March 2009), assessments are not very useful, and may even do more harm than good.

Maybe that's related to the fact that assessments are, as far as I know, the only significant and extensive feature of Wikipedia that cannot be edited by an ordinary reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dratman (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. --Arcadian (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate picture
I removed the inaccurate picture. The title of the image referenced Crohn's disease, but it didn't even look like any rash typical of ulcerative colitis, Crohn's, etc. I am not a confirmed user or I would have inserted an accurate picture of erythema nodosum. Leopoldmozart (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Subarticle Merge
There are two subarticles (for acute and chronic erythema nodosum) that are both one to two lines. I suggest a merge, on the grounds that these are articles are exceptionally small, unlikely to expand soon, and better covered on this page until content expands. LT90001 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In view of lack of objection in the last 2-3 weeks I have merged these articles. LT90001 (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)