Talk:Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation

Reason for creation

In case there is any confusion about why this needs to be distinct from hyperpigmentation, it is because there are many other types/causes of hyperpigmentation, and this particular one is frequently studied, described, and clinically treated as a distinct pathology. I mean, it has its own chapter in source #1, after all. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, 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: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that after an outbreak of acne, some people notice that their skin darkens for up to 12 months? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559150/#article-27519.s8 - Etiology section
  • ALT1: ... that although postinflammatory hyperpigmentation disappears within 12 months without treatment, some people get laser therapy to correct it sooner? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559150/#article-27519.s8 - Treatment/Management section, subsection Laser Therapy.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Do not need QPQ yet

Created by Just-a-can-of-beans (talk). Self-nominated at 02:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Not a real problem for the purpose of this review, but reference 4 is only a commentary to a primary source (a stand-alone study), so not a good WP:MEDRS; it's serves as a source to only one sentence though.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - The first hook references an article by StatPearls, which is a potentially controversial source - see for example this discussion. Moreover, according to the StatPearl source, PIH may in some cases take years to resolve without treatment. On the other hand, acne as a cause of PIH is non-controversial (the hook could be citing reference number 3); and reference number 2 does mention that it resolves in most cases "within 6–12 months of treating the underlying inflammatory condition". Both these references are perfect medical sources anyway, so I think all will be fine if these two references are cited for the hook instead. Some rephrasing may also be warrantied, to allow for the facts that acne needs to be treated (or resolve) for PIH to go away; that hyperpigmentation is not generalized, but localized (ref 2: "brown, black, or gray macules or patches in the pattern of an underlying inflammatory condition"); and that it can be even more than 12 months. ALT1, is fine, though it can also cite ref 3.
• Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Primary hook more interesting and catchy than ALT1. With some changes in the hook and the hook's reference, as described above, I strongly urge advancing it; this is my second DYK review, so I would appreciate a more experienced reviewer to make the final decision. NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Review seems good. I'd probably note for posterity that Earwig has some invalid concerns.--Launchballer 08:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Just-a-can-of-beans: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Experienced reviewer needed to make the final decision (i.e., post appropriate icon below) on this nomination. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Nominator has not attended to the hook/hook's reference, and with both the dodgy references excised this article would only have two left, so this should probably fail.--Launchballer 22:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)