Talk:Nevus of Ota

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Nevus of Ota.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Errors in this article

1) hydroquinone is not a treamtment for nevus of Ota

2) The included photo is not nevus of Ota. THis is probably a conjunctival nevus - a totally different lesion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.37.216.82 (talk) 12:06, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference matter

What is meant by ^: 700 against reference 2?--User:Brenont (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means page 700 of that reference. See Template:Rp. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Dubious

(Especially To editors 155.37.216.82, Kilbad, Brenont and Joseph A. Spadaro:) The use of this picture implies this nevus can also be brown, at least in the eye. Either the picture is wrongly captioned both here AND on the Commons AND wrongly categorized there (and I don't know how to tag those things on the Commons!) OR the text needs to be updated with an appropriate reference.

NOTES: The given reference in the body text is a dead link anyway, which I tagged in a ref parameter although no [dead link] appeared in body or ref text. Please note another person disputed this image at the top of this talk page. Sorry this is all I can do, but my real-life limitations get in the way of doing anything more. (Whew!) Thanks in advance! —Geekdiva (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: - You had these images in the article but next removed them yourself. Would you tell us why? Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geekdiva I do not remember. Feel free to restore them if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it out. Promotional editing by a group of socks. Still fine with you restoring the images now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]