Talk:Parakeratosis

	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.
	This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

Suggested changes

1. This article, stub as it is, is too jargony for the casual reader. Please try your best to make the wording more accessible. Explain the meaning of the terms within the text without relying on links (though links should still be there, of course). Links-only makes it hard for the casual reader to follow the topic as they begin hop-scotching all over WP trying to find out what a term means and what terms in that definition means until they give up in frustration. More challenging material can be added in the back half of the article as the topic is developed. After all, you are not writing for medical students as they already have their own text books to consult. This is a common complaint of mine for many of WP's medical/technical/scientific articles.

2. Relationship of anal/cervical/genital/vaginal parakeratosis with HPV, as it doesn't only occur on the outer skin's surface.

3. Further etiologies are needed, such as pelvic radiation.

4. Treatment modalities.

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with part 1. above, it's very well put, except for one thing; Quote: "This is a common complaint of mine for many of WP's medical/technical/scientific articles."

In fact, those observations are NOT owned by you, but are repeated throughout Wiki's guidelines and manuals many times, many ways, and are not there restricted just to "medical/technical/scientific articles." (Although the "medicals" do seem the most mindless in this regard.) I find it ironic that that you are almost using "baby-talk" to explain this to editors who don't give a rat's ass if those outside their too-groovy, oh-so-educated clique of wannabees can understand them or not. (What do they say about those who hide in unappropriate jargon?—besides being "poor writers?") Such blatant behaviour is reminiscent of intentionally oblivious ignorance. As is three+ years of non-repair. Frankly it is such a "sea of blue," overlinking, and lazy linking—even the Lead Section!—even the lead paragraph!—EVEN THE LEAD SENTENCE!—that I don't think it can reasonably be repaired. Such a thankless, tedious task by another editor would be akin to the stinking task of following the parade elephants with a shovel. I therefore challenge this article for not meeting Wikipedia standards, and unrepaired; I intend deletion. Thank you.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

I agree this article should be deleted, if not completely rewritten. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]