Template talk:Did you know/Skin cancer in horses

Skin cancer in horses

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk)

... that removing smegma from around the clitoris is recommended to prevent squamous-cell carcinoma (example pictured) in mares?

Created by Froggerlaura (talk). Self nom at 20:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the image: I'm going to go ahead and say no horse vulva on the main page. No prejudice against the hook, though. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT Image proposed- Yeah, didn't think so. I can also crop original to make it less offensive. Froggerlaura (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems confusing to have a clitoris-related hook but an eye-related image. If the new image is used, I would say the hook should also say something about eyes (or at least not about the clitoris). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a cropped image. The eye related hooks were less hooky. A picture is probably not necessary. Froggerlaura (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe it's just me, but I think it's pretty gross no matter how it's done. And I think if we run it we'll get a lot of complaints... rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, article length, history, and references check out; I didn't spot any editorial problems, so I think this is good to go once a hook is decided on. Apologies if it seems like I'm giving mixed messages, but I think without the gross picture then the hook by itself is not very "hooky"...I wonder if there's any more interesting or surprising fact in the article that could be used for a hook if no picture is used? rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I'm a little jaded about what the rest of the non-path world thinks is gross. I have a neutral photo for this condition. Froggerlaura (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC) So how about:[reply]

ALT 1: ... that sarcoids (pictured) are non-fatal tumors but are a common reason for euthanasia in horses?

ALT1 with the picture seems good to me. I'd be happy to hear input from other editors about the original picture. If other people think it's not a problem then we could go with it; I'm mostly just worried that there would be a bunch of complaints at WP:ERRORS and WP:DYK if it's run (for comparison, a few years ago on April Fool's the featured picture was one of a seagull pooping, and if I remember correctly a lot of people--both Wikipedians and readers--freaked out).
BTW, in ALT1 I changed "are a non-fatal tumor" to "are non-fatal tumors". It sounded more natural to me, but you might want to check to make sure that wording is accurate. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, some nitpicking: the source (I've only looked at the abstract so far) says they are probably the most common skin-related reason for euthanasia. Also, I find the wording of this sentence in the article a little bit awkward:
However, sarcoids are the most common cutaneous reason for euthanasia,[13] with the majority resulting for cosmetic and aesthetic reasons.
First of all, why's it "however" if the previous sentence already said euthanasia is a viable option for treatment? These sentences seem to express ideas that aren't in opposition to one another, so it seems like "In fact" would make more sense than "However". Also, I'm not sure what "with the majority resulting for cosmetic and aesthetic reasons" means here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the awkward wording and adjusted ALT 1 to reflect that it is author's opinion. Also,

ALT2: ... that up to 80% of aged gray horses may have melanoma, but most tumors are benign? Froggerlaura (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good for ALT1 and ALT2. Personally I like ALT1 best. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]