Talk:Precancerous condition

message: Dysplasia is the microscopic finding which is indicative of a pre-malignant condition. Dysplasia is a more mature page, which a good explanation of the dysplaia=>carcinoma in situ=>invasive carcinoma sequence. I don't see much benefit to retaining this as a separate page. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this merge proposal as no one had commented after a month. I have reconsidered, and now feel that there is significant unique content which could go on this page. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge to [[dysplasia]]

message: The article currently says:
Examples of pre-malignant conditions include
::    actinic keratosis 
giving a reference to: 
"Actinic Keratosis (A Precancerous Condition)". Retrieved 2009-03-03. 
The link provided no longer works. Apparently it has moved to here, with revisions. I looked at the newer page, which doesn't use the terms "precancerous" or "pre-malignant" in either the page's title or text. Instead, it says: 
AK is not cancer but it can sometimes change to squamous cell skin cancer. Treatment includes removing lesions and monitoring for skin cancer.
This may mean something similar, if not the same thing, but I will let someone else decide that. An alternative editing procedure would be to find a similar reference on AK that describes it as precancerous or pre-malignant, from an entirely different high-quality website, and use that reference to replace the existing reference. Or perhaps terminology has changed somewhat; that is, some experts might now consider it obsolete to refer to AK as "precancerous" or "pre-malignant," preferring instead to use some other wording. I'm not an expert.  Oaklandguy (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference moved and changed for AK; not sure if still the right source 

message: Hello, I am a part of the WikiMedicine Project at UCSF, which is a project aiming to improve medically related pages in wikipedia. I will be editing this page in the coming weeks in order to expand its scope, increase the number of references, and hopefully improve the overall informative content in the page. Below is a proposed timeline for my work.
Week 1: 
-Determine a list a clinically significant pre-malignant conditions, with preference given to common and dangerous pre-malignant conditions
-Reorganize and add to the list of clinically significant pre-malignant conditions, organized by disease site
-Search for and find further media/images depicting important pre-malignant conditions
-Perform a literature search for relevant references
Week 2:
-Expand the "external resources"
-Expand the page header
-Expand the content of the page, with subsections devoted to clinically important pre-malignant conditions and links to their respective pages
 
Week 3:
-Peer review and revisions  
Introduction and biology - 
Breakdown by organ:
Skin, gynecological/anal, oral/head and neck, breast, gastrointestinal, thyroid, hematological (links to respective wiki pages)
Focus sections on colon polyps, cervical dysplasia, actinic keratosis, pre-malignant squamous lesions.
References: NCI, ACS
Pasta296 (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedicine project  

message: Great job Pasta296! I think the article is vastly improved with your addition of sections with headings and organized list of example precancerous conditions. Detailed nitpicking is below, but that's my general impression
===Lead/Intro===
* I like the synonyms added to the Infobox and enlarging the picture in it.
* The rewording of the first sentence is also an improvement in terms of clarity
* Summarizing the variety of precancerous conditions is a good idea; however, the mini-discussion on carcinoma in situ at the end reads as if it belongs somewhere in the "classification" section
* The sentence on coining the term "precancerous condition" also looks pretty out place with no context in the main body of the article. It should be in a "history" section but there is none. Maybe you can start a short one? Or find somewhere else to put it?
===Article===
* Again, the subheadings are a vast improvement
* The new "Causes" and S/Sx sections are short, but I think they were skillfully written to be both open-ended and illustrative
* The Pathophys paragraph/sentence sounds weird and unclear. Could you just say something about "cellular and genetic changes that lead to abnormal division" Reader can follow wikilink for details
===References===
* The lead has been improved with many new citations
* However, the new sections have no citations
* The journal citation is complete with a convenient, open-access PMC link
* Some of the other web links could be improved by adding the publisher/organization/web-domain. Not sure about the best way to do this, but the "Canadian Cancer Society:" thing for some of your sources looks great
* Looks like the External links section didn't end up getting much love. I think one link or even a reference that is authoritative and similarly broad in scope, like a chapter in a textbook, to back up most of your listed examples would be a very useful improvement
===Summary===
* Great: updated info box, added references and content to lead, added new sections, organized examples of precancers
* Could improve: refine lead to summarize points with context in the rest of the article, add references in new sections, add at least one correspondingly broad reference on precancerous conditions
Happy to discuss!
SUJesse (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSF Wikiproject medicine peer review 

message: * Great: updated info box, added references and content to lead, added new sections, organized examples of precancers
* Could improve: refine lead to summarize points with context in the rest of the article, add references in new sections, add at least one correspondingly broad reference on precancerous conditions
Happy to discuss!
SUJesse (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Thanks SUJesse for the review and comments. I've made many of the changes you suggested, including adding multiple new sources and improving source formatting. I've also reworded some of the main sections. Thanks!Pasta296 (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to peer edit