[[T:ITN]] : "The discovery of a 4,000-year-old skeleton showing the earliest known evidence of *leprosy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy* *(example pictured)* in the Indian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_territories_of_Indiaof Rajasthan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajasthan is announced."

Interesting that an article about an ancient disease, just now on its way out (763K new cases in 2002 \ 400K in 2004) can make ITN, even with a minimal-importance update. I think its great, especially when it links to a great article. (Even linking to a bad article is great too, if it gets that article attention and development).

My issues particular to the leprosy article (relevant, I think, as its a front-page link. Will deal with there directly) are: 1) Ugly hatnote.. "For the malady found in the Hebrew Bible, see Tzaraathhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzaraath. For the album by the band Death, see Leprosy (album)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy_%28album%29 ." ...instead of a plain {{otheruses}} disambiguation note. Hatnotes to hair/death/whatever "metal" bands on legitimate topic article, trivialize wikipedia's coverage and are teh suck.

2) (Less important): The hatnote on [[leprosy]] references [[tzaraath]] as "the malady found in the Hebrew Bible" rather than something more accurate like "the original Hebrew Bible term for leprosy." The tzaraath article claims that "some scholars suggest that any connection between tzaraath and leprosy is altogether erroneous," though no actual citation or treatment of this direct criticism is evident in the article aside from some necessary treament of the conceptual variance in an old term. Thus the distinction is terminological, not in the domain of medicine as implied by the term "malady."

-Steven