Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cutaneous conditions/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009.

List of cutaneous conditions

 * Nominator(s): kilbad (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating the list of skin-related conditions for featured list status as I believe this content meets the six featured list criteria. ---kilbad (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The topics I raised below have been resolved satisfactorily. There are still some red links that I introduced due to WP:ENDASH fixes (see Talk:List of skin-related conditions ) but these will be easy to fix so I'll just change my vote to "support" now. Eubulides (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment. A very impressive list, unique among the medical lists in Wikipedia. A few relatively-minor comments.
 * Having all the article body (aside from references etc.) in a single section seems overkill. Why not have multiple sections in the article body?
 * It links to disambiguation pages (see "disambig links" in the toolbox); these should get fixed.
 * Several of the citation URLs don't work, e.g., are to a web site that requires a subscription. Please see "external links" in the Toolbox for a list.
 * The See also section should be removed. Its two wikilinks should be moved to the lead (with some text to include them).
 * The Footnotes section should be removed. That footnote can be in the main text.
 * The Further reading section seems quite a bit too long. By and large these should be inline citations, or removed. (Andrews' is probably an exception.)
 * File:Gas gangrene.jpg seems to illustrate more than just a skin condition. If so, I'd remove it.
 * The list is so long that it might not hurt to have a brief list (at the start) of the most common skin diseases; each item in that list can be a forward link to the relevant entry. Just a thought.
 * I am no expert in the area and can't comment on whether the list is consistent or complete.
 * Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, this appears to be stunning work. I've had a twiddle here and there, but it sets a great standard. I say this while tapping my hat to Eubulides's suggestions above, and in advance to those of my other colleagues, especially WRT content issues. Just one issue, though: I still find it hard to consider muscle and glands (wholly) to be part of the skin organ system ... just checking that you mean all muscle and all glands in the body? (The pituitary gland?). Otherwise, why not insert change this: "the organ system that covers the entire surface of the body and is composed of skin, hair, nails, muscle, and glands." into this: "the organ system that covers the entire surface of the body and is composed of skin, hair, nails, and related muscle and glands."? Also, is there a possible wiktionary link to "interdigitates"? Conflict-of-interest disclosure: I had a look-see and provided a few pointers on this list a couple of months ago by request, along with other editors. Tony   (talk)  07:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC) PS "Based on the distribution of these cells, the structure of this tissue may be divided based on  ...". I can't work out how to fix this repetition. And "on the basis of" might clearer if you were going to retain the second one, but you may decide not to.  Tony   (talk)  08:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'd like to echo the users above in saying this is a massive work and an impressive list. I only had a couple of minutes to look it over, but it seems very complete and pretty expansive. My only complaints would be these.
 * I went through and searched out a bunch of conditions I knew should be listed and cross-referenced with a pathology texts. The only one I didn't find was Familial Melanoma Syndrome, not sure if it is missing or under a different name.
 * The classification system seems to utilize many different classification systems from Etiology, to Symptom, to Location. I'd try to stick to one theme overall, you'll probably have some need to throw in something that doesn't fit overall here and there, but the way things are now is rather confusing. For instance under Blistering Disorders, I find Epidermolysis Bullosa classified as a blistering disorder and not as an autoimmune disorder. Under Metabolic Disorders, I find poryphyrias but they also are blistering disorders. You need to decide which categories will have priorities over the other so a predictable system for locating a disorder can be used. It doesn't really matter it could be priority based etiology>symptoms etc. or it could be the first thing the disorder fits into alphabetically. I think this would go a long way in helping people to navigate the list successfully, especially as it's so comprehensive and large.
 * I'd try and include some more pictures if you can find any. There aren't many organ systems which manifest with the vast array of visual symptoms, so a list like this could certainly capitalize on that aspect.

Keep up the great work! Let me know if you need anything. --Syntrik (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe a See also link to ICD-10 L00-L99? Bobjgalindo (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Echo the above, but we don't start lists with "This is a list of..." any more. Please see recently promoted lists for examples of engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Update 1
 * Resolved issues
 * I integrated the "See also" section into the text and subsequently removed it
 * File:Gas gangrene.jpg has been removed
 * The first sentence now is worded to read "...and related muscle and glands."
 * There is now a link to interdigitate
 * There is now a link to ICD-10 Chapter XII
 * The list no longer starts with "This is a list of..."


 * Follow-up questions/comments


 * @ user:Eubulides - Thank you very much for your feedback. With that being said, could you elaborate on a few of your comments so I can better understand/respond?


 * 1. Could you discuss your first comment? What do you mean regarding having the entire body in a single section?
 * 2. The list will always link to some disambiguation pages, since some disease names have been used to refer to different conditions and therefore require a disambiguation page (see: Keratosis follicularis for example). However, in all honestly, I am uncertain where to find the "disambig links" or "external links" buttons in the toolbox, and wanted to know if you could give me instructions on how to find these tools so I can better look into the issue.
 * 3. I have tried to use mostly free, full-text articles available through PubMed for inline citations; however, occasionally I had to use articles in which only the abstract was available (i.e. the full text article is not free). In these latter cases, if someone wishes to see just the abstract, they can go through PubMed, else the citation URL is going to take the user to the journal's login page, where they can sign-up and pay for the full text if they want.  The links are working, but users have to sign-up to see the article.  Does that make sense?
 * 4. How would you go about integrating the footnote into the main text?
 * 5. I agree the "Further reading" section has a good number of articles, but I think they supplement the list nicely, and most are free full text. I added this section after seeing it suggested at WP:MEDMOS.  As the article currently stands, the existing text already has good inline citations; therefore, I think I would either like to simply keep the section (my preference), or get rid of it, but not convert the articles over to inline citations.  What do you think?


 * @ user:Syntrik - Thank you as well for your feedback, and I also had a few follow-up questions/comments:


 * 1. I personally do not have a source discussing "Familial melanoma syndrome," and was neither able to find an ICD-9 or 10 code for it, nor find it at OMIM or PubMed. I certainly am not saying it doesn't exist, but perhaps you could find out if "Familial melanoma syndrome" is know by any other synonyms, synonyms which I can then use to do some additional research, possibly allowing me to integrate that term into the list?  Regardless, as far as the list's completeness, I believe that the overwhelming majority of skin diseases and disease synonyms are found within this list.  Of course, from time to time I am sure an occasional disease and/or synonym may surface that will need to be added.  However, I believe this list to be essentially complete.
 * 2. With regard to the list's "classification system," the list's headers/organization reflect the current categorization scheme for dermatology-related articles, which is outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. However, you are exactly correct in your assessment that the organization utilizes many different classification systems.  In response to that, I would encourage you to read the last paragraph of the lead which addresses the nosological challenges that are associated with classifying skin diseases.  For even more information on this issue, there is a great free article, which is cited in the list, you can read at Historical outline of attempts to classify skin diseases.  Does that help clarify how the list is organized?


 * Thank you all again for your comments, and I look forward to continued feedback! If possible, for sake of readability, I respectfully ask that you please add comments/responses/feedback below, and not within my text. ---kilbad (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Further comments:


 * I haven't had too long to read over the list, and my area of "expertise" is more in referencing and citations, so my comments will be short and in that regard.
 * WP:LS pretty clearly says that "[t]he lead should contain no more than four paragraphs..." I don't know if you want to take this into account, as a list may be an exception, but the MOS is pretty clear.
 * The placement of the "See also" categories is, at least aesthetically, bothering me. I don't know if there is some guideline on the placement of them, but I think they should be moved under the header, so, for example, it would read: Acneiform eruptions > See also Category: ...  > so on and so forth. This would follow what other articles do with See also within the text (however, a list may have different procedures).
 * To echo what was said above, I'd remove the solitary footnote and place it in the text.
 * I'm split on the issue of the Further reading. It is long, so cutting it down a bit to the bare essentials might be nice, but on the other hand, you've got a huge list altogether, and the further reading has links that look (to my medically uneducated eye) to cover most of the stuff above.


 * Other than that, it all looks really great. You did a good job. Hope that helps. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, lists are still articles, so they should follow the MOS, including WP:LS. That said, the Lede should be of a size in comparison to the main body, and I don't see five as too much in this case. An WP:IAR situation for me. Matthewedwards : Chat  19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The see alsos should be directly under the header, rather than under the section prose: WP:LAYOUT Matthewedwards : Chat  19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Looks very good otherwise. Matthewedwards : Chat  19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Toolbox that contains links to find dabs and registration-required external links is at the top of this FLC nomination, to the right.
 * Is Arygria listed? I couldn't find it. Something about turning skin blue from drinking colloidal silver
 * You admit that this list is probably, but may not be complete. How about sticking expand list or dynamic list into the page?
 * I'm a bit concerned that only the lead section has citations. I understand how inconvenient and ridiculous it would be to cite each individual entry, and I did notice the footnote, so maybe it isn't really an issue after all. As I said, I'm only very slightly concerned so I'm just noting it here for any other reviewers to perhaps comment on. If it doesn't worry anyone else then it's OK for me, too.
 * Because each item is bullet pointed with no description of each condition, are there any plans for sublists - List of Acneiform eruptions skin conditions, List of Dermatitis skin conditions etc that could describe symptoms and causes? As a single page online, it's very good. But for anyone accessing it offline (a printed version, for example), it may not help them because they cannot view the relevant pages. Even for those online, they may not wish to navigate away from this main page, but at least if there were subpages with more indepth information, one could perhaps go to the Dermatitis skin condition list and compare conditions far more easily than here.
 * Again, just throwing it out there, but for me, this list is more akin to an Outline than a regular list (such as we have with Outline of health and Outline of medicine.
 * I agree that this seems to be an outline, and a very well-done one at that. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's an incredible list you've compiled, kilbad! I'm not sure how the rest of Wikipedia does it, but to me, "skin-related conditions" is such a large topic that I think you should break this massive list down into smaller, more manageable sublists.  That would make it much easier to add to/edit/verify the completeness and accuracy, compared to this monolithic list.  It should be easily done, too, since all the information is here.  Nevertheless, it is an incredibly thorough list that deserves praise and recognition!  I just don't know about the usefulness of a massive list like this, compared to sublists.  (Yes, I'm a splitter, not a lumper.)Danierrr (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Update 2


 * Resolved issues
 * The "See also" statements are now found directly under the section headers
 * I integrated the one, solitary footnote into the text, and subsequently removed the footnote section
 * All links to disambiguation pages have been corrected
 * I have added the dynamic list template


 * Follow-up questions/comments:


 * @ user:Leonard^Bloom
 * I tend to think that, for the size and scope of this list, a five paragraph lead is ok; however, if there is a significant community drive to cut the lead down to four paragraphs, I am willing to pursue that.
 * Again addressing the "Further reading" section, in addition to my initial comments above, I believe that for a list of this size, the number of articles listed in this section is not overkill. In fact, I believe the articles included there add a lot of substance to the list as most are free (if not all), and constitute some of the best review articles available.


 * @ user:Matthewedwards
 * Argyria is present in the list under "Disturbances of pigmentation."


 * @ user: Danierrr
 * Creating sublists in the future could definitely be an additional task pursued by the dermatology task force. However, with regard to this list, I am opposed to breaking it up into separate sublists, and this is for several reasons.  First, this comprehensive list allows a rapid lookup of disease names and synonyms all in one place.  Second, the list helps to guide the initial categorization of cutaneous conditions.  Third, and one of the most important reasons, is that it allows for the use of the "related changes" link in the toolbox, enabling any user to immediately see all recent changes made to any of the cutaneous condition articles on wikipedia (a nice feature for new task force members who are not watching every derm page).


 * Once again, and I sincerely mean this, thanks for your additional comments, and I look forward to continued feedback! If possible, for sake of readability, I respectfully ask that you please add comments/responses/feedback below, and not within my text. ---kilbad (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Further comments...
 * Re: Familial Melanoma Syndrome (FMS): I did some snooping around and managed to find a slight connection of FMS with Dysplastic Nevus Syndrome (DNS) via this link: (ctrl-F and type in Familial Melanoma Syndrome if you can't be bothered to read the entire link hehe). Furthermore, there is a slight connection found here:  between DNS and familial atypical mole-malignant melanoma syndrome (FAMMM) which does have an article on Wikipedia- so what I am getting at is: a redirect will solve the problem here once an expert can judge the info provided and confirm that all of the above are more or less the same. Further info can be seen here:  and here is the Google results of FMS: . Now re: article itself, I think it is absolutely brilliant. I am unsure what the standards are on FL but it should definitely be passed. I would have made a suggestion to make this list into a table format (since I always see lists in that form) but then there would be a need to include more than just the name itself (e.g. OMIM, ICD9/10, discovery, epidemiology data etc etc.) which I am not sure if it would be suitable on this massive list. I suppose a future goal for this list could be to have a picture for every single disease (this is where the table format would come in handy) but again, I am just throwing things out there just for the sake of it (the amount of work you would have to put in would be incredible!) and unless the table format is there, would make the list too messy if there were so many pics. Finally, kudos on having an AKA after the name of the item on the list. Cheers and keep up the great work!Calaka (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Could you discuss your first comment? What do you mean regarding having the entire body in a single section?" Currently section 1 is Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system, which is basically the entire list; then section 2 is References. Wouldn't it be better to have section 1 be Acneiform eruptions, section 2 be Autoinflammatory, ..., and then section 34 be References? I'm not familiar with how lists are typically done in Wikipedia, but thought I'd ask.
 * "I am uncertain where to find the "disambig links" or "external links" buttons in the toolbox" I meant the toolbox at the top of this page, i.e., at the top right of Featured list candidates/List of skin-related conditions/archive1.
 * "if someone wishes to see just the abstract, they can go through PubMed, else the citation URL is going to take the user to the journal's login page, where they can sign-up and pay for the full text if they want." Common practice in medical articles is to supply a URL only if the entire article (not just the abstract) is freely readable. See WP:MEDRS . This provides readers a useful visual cue to identify sources that are easier to access. The DOI and/or PMID suffices for non-free articles.
 * "As the article currently stands, the existing text already has good inline citations; therefore, I think I would either like to simply keep the section (my preference), or get rid of it, but not convert the articles over to inline citations." Now I'm confused. Some of the sources in Further reading are duplicates of what's in References (e.g., Alsaad et al. 2005, ). Other sources are not, e.g., Bickers & Athar 2006 . Often, once a source is listed in References it is removed from Further reading. Should that be done here? Or is this a list of useful sources for skin conditions? If so, perhaps it should be moved into a subarticle.

IMHO, the first four paragraphs in the lead - while well-written and informative - don't really have a place in this list article. For me, the lead doesn't get on-point until the fifth and final paragraph when it beings to discuss the basis for skin conditions. However, I feel all that is needed here in the lead is an engaging introduction to the subject and some sort of scope definition of the list contents. The main thing is not to confuse the reader. I felt a tad confused four paragraphs in, when I felt I had just read informative and well-sourced prose about skin in general, but learned nothing about skin-related conditions nor the contents of the list to follow. -- &#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  ssn&#596;s&#305;p 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by Levine2112

Update 3


 * Resolved issues
 * I removed the single, overarching "Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system" header
 * I removed the redundant "Further reading" articles that were already in the "References" section
 * I removed all links/URL's to non-free articles, while leaving all DOI and/or PMID links in place
 * I added Dysplastic nevus syndrome and associated synonyms to the list


 * Follow-up questions/comments


 * @ user:Eubulides
 * Thank you for getting back to me. Your additional comments helped to clarify your initial post.  I hope the changes I have since made address your feedback.


 * @ user:Calaka
 * I did some research, and it seems that the entity which is "Dysplastic nevus syndrome" was described at the same time by several different people around the late 1970's (Clark and Lynch being the two most notable, independent authors); therefore, as a result, this condition was described by several different names, all of which refer to the same thing. After looking at the sources more closely, I believe all of the following terms are synonymous: "dysplastic nevus syndrome," "familial atypical multiple mole-melanoma syndrome", "familial melanoma syndrome," and "B-K mole syndrome."  Therefore, I have created a Dysplastic nevus syndrome stub, and redirected all the other synonyms to that stub.  I hope that helps clarify things a bit?


 * @ user:Levine2112
 * Thank you for your comments. Currently, the lead section is based on a working outline that first gives a basic four paragraph introduction into the structure and function of the skin, followed by a fifth paragraph introducing cutaneous conditions.  At the time of writing it, I felt that an initial basic discussion about the structure and function of this skin was important because a lot of dermatologic terminology can be confusing if the reader has no background in the topic.  I feel that, for example, giving the brief introduction to the integumentary system allows a general reader to have a basic understanding of what "Epidermal nevi, neoplasms, or cysts" might be, or where within the skin a "Dermal or subcutaneous growth" is occurring.  My preference would be to leave the basic structure and function introduction in place, but, certainly, if the community consensus is to remove it, I will do so.


 * Thank you all again, and I look forward to further comments. If possible, for sake of readability, I respectfully ask that you please add comments/responses/feedback below, and not within my text. ---kilbad (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I believe this list meets all of the FL criteria. I do have a couple of nitpicks, and I must admit I didn't read everyone else's comments, so I apologize in advance if any of this is redundant :) That's it. This is a very impressive piece of work, and serves as a perfect introduction to the WP:DERM categorization scheme to boot. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by Fvasconcellos
 * The lead is much too long. While it provides an impressive introduction to the anatomy and function of the skin and associated structures, I don't think this is necessary in this particular list. Readers should be led into the actual content of the list as briefly as possible while being given enough context to understand the content; the current lead pretty much goes beyond this need, and I feel it could be trimmed considerably without detriment to the reader.
 * Would you object to moving the lead image up to coincide with the first paragraph?
 * Are predominantly non-cutaneous infectious diseases with cutaneous manifestations really considered "skin-related"? This isn't entirely clear from the fifth paragraph of the lead (which mostly defines the scope of the list). I was somewhat surprised to see a photo of measles as the list's second image; I thought the idea of measles as a cutaneous disease (i.e. one of the classical exanthems of childhood) was outdated. I guess I didn't quite get it :)


 * Further comments...
 * Any more thoughts on this being moved to Outline of skin-related conditions? User:The Transhumanist, who has spent at least a year working on Wikipedia's outlines feels it should be, too. User talk:The Transhumanist. He also raises a good point that I hadn't thought of. Why is this not "skin conditions"? Matthewedwards : Chat  07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be considered an outline. I don't think that would change the FLC, though (outlines are list-class, correct?). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. The lead is not a big issue, and it is a good, if detailed, introduction to skin conditions. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Update 4


 * Resolved issues
 * The list's use of dashes now conforms to WP:DASH
 * The last sentence in paragraph four now reads "Functionally, the subcutaneous fat insulates the body, absorbs trauma, and serves as a reserve energy source."
 * The list has been renamed to List of cutaneous conditions


 * Follow-up questions/comments
 * With regard to the lead length, I have read comments supporting the existing content/length, and comments stating the lead is a bit too long, and, with that being said, I am not sure what the consensus is. My preference would be to leave the lead as is, which is why I have yet to cut it down.  Perhaps more people could comment on this issue so I can get a better idea of what the community consensus is regarding the lead's content/length?


 * Regardless, thanks again for all the help. If possible, for sake of readability, I respectfully ask that you please add comments/responses/feedback below, and not within my text. ---kilbad (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also found a reference to familial melanoma syndrome after snooping around for a while. In Robin's Pathology, Edition 7 pg 1245 it's listed as an Autosomal Dominant mutation in the 9p21 chromosome of CDKN2 gene leading to deficiences in p16INK4A and p14ARF. It doesn't have much detail outside of this. Syntrik (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could add that information/citation to the new dysplastic nevus syndrome stub? ---kilbad (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Further comments...


 * Support - I support this article as a featured list in its current state.  I like the lead how it is, and don't think it's too long.  I am a pathologist at the Cleveland Clinic, and can definitely see how all these dermatology/skin terms/language could be very confusing to the general reader without some type of basic introduction.  Great job kilbad! ---Bojilov (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - nice list about medical conditions — Chris!  c t 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - A phenomenal effort and a great contribution to Wikipedia. (p.s. I like the lead as is.) Sasata (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Regardless of my feelings about the lead (discussed above), this list deserves to be featured as what all Wikipedia lists should strive to be. -- &#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  ssn&#596;s&#305;p 07:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Avoid squashing text between images as you have in the lead per WP:MOS.
 * Also, use the regular  and   tags instead of forcing image sizes.
 * Have you checked you're meeting WP:ITALICS for foreign terms?
 * Otherwise it appears incredibly comprehensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up on images. I redid the images to try to address those issues; see Talk:List of cutaneous conditions . Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Update 5


 * Resolved issues
 * The lead now only has one photo, which alleviates prior squashing of the text
 * Images now use the "thumb" attribute instead of forcing image sizes
 * All images now use "alt" attributes


 * Follow-up questions/comments
 * I have made some additional edits, and believe the list conforms to the WP:ITALICS guidelines for foreign terms. However, if someone wants to review the list to confirm this, feedback would be much appreciated.


 * Regardless, thanks again. If possible, for sake of readability, I respectfully ask that you please add comments/responses/feedback below, and not within my text. ---kilbad (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Further comments...


 * I wonder if Lupus erythematosus is too broad to be listed under the Conditions of the skin appendages. Besides, there is a fine list under Connective tissue diseases. How about the malar rash? Is it implied under SLE? I wonder if it ought to be listed on its own. Bobjgalindo (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally feel that lupus erythematosus is appropriately included in the list, particularly given all its cutaneous manifestations. It should also be noted that lupus erythematosus is not synonymous with systemic lupus erythematosus, but instead, systemic lupus erythematosus is a subtype of lupus erythematosus.  Also, the term "malar rash" is simply a descriptive term used to denote a skin eruption of the cheek (hence the adjective "malar"), and is not a specific condition/diagnosis.  Hope that helps? ---kilbad (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.