Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation/archive1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:02, 3 March 2009

Water fluoridation

Nominator(s): Eubulides (talk)

This became a Good Article after a careful and helpful review from Doc James along with critical and ultimately supportive comments by II. It went through peer review with positive comments by Finetooth and a useful quick comment from Colin. It's ready for a shot at Featured Article status.

Fluoridation is sometimes controversial. The article focuses on technical aspects and briefly summarizes the controversy in its Ethics and politics section, with a subarticle Opposition to water fluoridation (not part of this nomination) that goes into more detail. Eubulides (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom, images and sources reviewed. (Please avoid the use of caps to hide comments, per WP:FAC instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs, ref formatting, and external links found up to speed using WP:REFTOOLS, dabs and external links checker tool.--TRU CO 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns regarding article structure have been moved from here to the talk article's talk page, because at approximately 6.5Kb they have been deemed too long for this venue. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of templates to hide long commentary is discouraged at FAC as it causes FAC archives to exceed template limits (see the WP:FAC instructions). Long commentary is better placed on article talk, with a brief example of WP:WIAFA issues placed on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SandyGeorgia that long and detailed commentary such as the above would be better discussed on the talk page, and have copied it and replied to it in Talk:Water fluoridation #Article structure etc. I suggest to Xasodfuih to remove this long thread from this page, as it sort of gets in the way, but that's up to Xasodfuih of course. Eubulides (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I intend to re-read the article before posting my opinions. However, it most certainly is not a drug article (and even if it was, WP:MEDMOS only offers suggested headings; it doesn't insist on them.) WF is a public health issue, not a treatment one gets on prescription from a pharmacist. There are medical and bio-chemical aspects to this topic but they sit alongside many others. For example, the safety of WF additionally concerns the implementation at the treatment works, and environmental impact. Neither feature in a drug article's section on side effects. Colin°^Talk 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In general this article conveys the right message. The more egregious issues have been solved during the previous FAC round. It's clear to me that the remaining differences of opinion regarding this article will not be resolved in an editing environment like this, so this is as good as it gets. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing comments by Peripitus (talk · contribs) - not a comprehensive read as yet but some things stand out.
- There is material in the lead (highlighted by the use of inline references) that is not elsewhere. The lead should be a summary of the entire article and this is instead written more as an introduction. I would suggest moving all of the material and citations to the body of the article then rewriting the lead. As it stands the lead section is full of statistics and cited details but is lacking an overview of some parts of the article.
- The article is very US-centric in places and almost totally in others. Much of the lead, almost all of "Implementation" and "History" sections, and quite a few other places are overly focused on this one country. A worldwide perspective is needed.

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, every statement in the lead summarizes a corresponding statement (or statements) in the body. Can you please be specific about any problems in this area?
Every inline citation in the lead is also cited in the body; surely there's nothing wrong with this style, as it's common in technical Wikipedia articles.
"I would suggest moving all of the material and citations to the body of the article" As far as I can see, all the material and citations in the lead are already present in the body.
"the lead section ... is lacking an overview of some parts of the article" Which parts are those?
"The article is very US-centric in places" The topic has come up before (please see Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive 2 #Mechanism and worldwide view, for example) and the consensus has been, on reflection, that the article does not place undue weight on U.S. views. The topic is inherently U.S.-centric, as water fluoridation was first done in the U.S., most water-fluoridation research has been done in the U.S., and about half of the world's fluoridated population lives in the U.S.
For reference, here is a list of every source in Water fluoridation that is cited 5 or more times:

Australia: NHMRC 2007, cited 9 times.
Italy: Pizzo et al. 2007 (PMID 17333303), cited 8 times.
UK: McDonagh et al. 2000, cited 6 times; Jones et al. 2005 (PMID 16211158), cited 7 times; Cheng et al 2007 (PMID 17916854), cited 5 times.
U.S.: CDC 2001 (PMID 11521913), cited 8 times

Overall these statistics do not indicate a U.S.-centric view; on the contrary, given the topic, if anything the statistics suggest a bit of a bias against the U.S.

Eubulides (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An observation. I don't agree with his analysis, but your response is obfuscating as well because a review can be cited for any number of issues, from country specific stuff to scientific info (mechanism etc.) or a metaanalysis of some studies. He's referring to the coverage of the text, whereas you reply with a fairly meaningless argument of how often some sources are cited when that does not correlate at all with what he's talking about. It's discussion like this that made me give up trying to improve this article further. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to opposition. The implementation section could not possibly focus on countries that have not implemented WF. The cost in the lede is from US, and should be clarified as such. Having said that, costs for Australia are available, and could mentioned. The history section is also by necessity US-centric since the US was the first to fluoridate, and that's where the initial research took place. That section being summarized in the lede (1-2 sentences) does not appear WP:UNDUE to me. The only possible US-centrist stuff in the lede might be the juxtaposition of the percentage of the U.S. population with the one for the rest of the world; percentages for other implementing/English-speaking countries could be mentioned; the last sentence can give the impression that WF is an US-only thing. The map (later in the body) which combines natural and artificial water fluoridation (although the original data source gives them on separate columns) isn't terribly useful at pointing out which other countries implement WF on a significant scale. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comments in FAC before restart. Not going to repeat the whole thing. Your last comment, which was confusing:

(copied from before restart - complaint that fluoridation redirects to water fluoridation so that anyone searching for fluoridation will be redirected to this article on the controlled addition of fluoride to the public water supply.) This is my main complaint about the article, that it conflates natural and artificial water fluoridation. The very first sentence is the following: Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay.^[1] I still feel the article would be better off not pretending to just discuss "the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply" as it really discusses fluoridation in general, and mixes the statistics of natural and the "controlled addition" of fluoride, as well as discussing the effects of fluoridation in toothpaste, salt etc. The article does not remain focused on the "controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply" that the lead sentence says is the topic. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubulides - copied - in part - from before restart) The article is supposed to be about water fluoridation, and the vast majority of its text focuses on WF rather than on its alternatives; but it's impossible to cover WF in an encyclopedic way without also briefly discussing related topics (toothpaste, salt fluoridation, dental sealants, etc.), just as it's impossible for Autism to discuss the topic of classic autism in an encyclopedic way without also discussing Asperger syndrome, PDD-NOS, epilepsy, etc. Perhaps some of these related topics are discussed in too much detail (and if so, please say exactly where and when), but surely it'd be too much to ask Water fluoridation to not discuss these related topics at all. Eubulides (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(my response before restart regarding conflation of fluoridation natural water fluoridation with artificial fluoridation) This is like a situation in which Autism redirects to Asperger syndrome so Asperger syndrome is now compelled to discuss Autism in general rather than focusing on Asperger syndrome. Bear in mind that anyone who wants to know about fluoridation gets redirected to Water fluoridation which starts out by limiting the article to "the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply". However, in the statistics presented it is not always possible to separate the controlled addition from the effects of naturally fluoridated water, or even from the effects other fluoridation methods in all cases. Since there is no general article on fluoridation, why not make this one general. Or at the very least, water fluoridation could be defined as fluoride in the water supply whether artificer or natural. Then both could be discussed. It would be easy to explain why statistics and maps etc. cannot always separate the two, and the article could discuss the effects of fluoridation in water as well as the alternatives methods of distribution like salt, toothpaste etc. would remedy my major objection to the article which is the conflation, as mentioned many times above.

My objections prior to restart remain. Since they have not been addressed, and do not seem to be understood, I will register a formal oppose, which previously I was trying to avoid. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference FRWG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[FRWG-1] Cite error: The named reference FRWG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 ::::: '''An observation'''. I don't agree with his analysis, but your response is obfuscating as well because a review can be cited for any number of issues, from country specific stuff to scientific info (mechanism etc.) or a metaanalysis of some studies. He's referring to the coverage of the text, whereas you reply with a fairly meaningless argument of how often some sources are cited when that does not correlate at all with what he's talking about. It's discussion like this that made me give up trying to improve this article further. [[User:Xasodfuih|Xasodfuih]] ([[User talk:Xasodfuih|talk]]) 09:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 :::: '''Reply to opposition'''. The implementation section could not possibly focus on countries that have not implemented WF. The cost in the lede is from US, and should be clarified as such. Having said that, costs for Australia are available, and could mentioned. The history section is also by necessity US-centric since the US was the first to fluoridate, and that's where the initial research took place. That section being summarized in the lede (1-2 sentences) does not appear [[WP:UNDUE]] to me. The only possible US-centrist stuff in the lede might be the juxtaposition of the percentage of the U.S. population with the one for the rest of the world; percentages for other implementing/English-speaking countries could be mentioned; the last sentence can give the impression that WF is an US-only thing. The map (later in the body) which combines natural and artificial water fluoridation (although the original data source gives them on separate columns) isn't terribly useful at pointing out which other countries implement WF on a significant scale. [[User:Xasodfuih|Xasodfuih]] ([[User talk:Xasodfuih|talk]]) 11:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' per my comments in FAC before restart. Not going to repeat the whole thing. Your last comment, which was confusing:
+:* (copied from before restart - complaint that [[fluoridation]] redirects to [[water fluoridation]] so that anyone searching for fluoridation will be redirected to this article on the controlled addition of fluoride to the public water supply.)  This is my main complaint about the article, that it conflates natural and artificial water fluoridation. The very first sentence is the following: '''Water fluoridation''' is the controlled addition of [[fluoride]] to a [[public water supply]] to reduce [[tooth decay]].<ref name=FRWG/> I still feel the article would be better off not pretending to just discuss "the controlled addition of [[fluoride]] to a [[public water supply]]" as it really discusses [[fluoridation]] in general, and mixes the statistics  of natural and the "controlled addition" of fluoride, as well as discussing the effects of fluoridation in toothpaste, salt etc. The article does not remain focused on the "controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply" that the lead sentence says is the topic. &mdash;[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
+::* (Eubulides - copied - in part -  from before restart) The article is supposed to be about water fluoridation, and the vast majority of its text focuses on WF rather than on its alternatives; but it's impossible to cover WF in an encyclopedic way without also briefly discussing related topics (toothpaste, salt fluoridation, dental sealants, etc.), just as it's impossible for ''[[Autism]]'' to discuss the topic of classic autism in an encyclopedic way without also discussing [[Asperger syndrome]], [[PDD-NOS]], [[epilepsy]], etc. Perhaps some of these related topics are discussed in too much detail (and if so, please say exactly where and when), but surely it'd be too much to ask ''[[Water fluoridation]]'' to not discuss these related topics at all. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 01:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
+:::*(my response before restart regarding conflation of [[fluoridation]]  natural [[water fluoridation]] with artificial fluoridation) This is  like a situation in which  [[Autism]] redirects to [[Asperger syndrome]] so  [[Asperger syndrome]] is now compelled to discuss [[Autism]] in general rather than focusing on [[Asperger syndrome]]. Bear in mind that anyone who wants to know about [[fluoridation]] gets redirected to [[Water fluoridation]] which starts out by limiting the article to "the controlled addition of [[fluoride]] to a [[public water supply]]". However, in the statistics presented it is not always possible to separate the controlled addition from the effects of naturally fluoridated water, or even from the effects  other fluoridation methods in all cases. Since there is no general article on fluoridation, why not make this one general. Or at the very least, [[water fluoridation]] could be defined as [[fluoride]] in the [[water supply]] whether artificer or natural. Then both could be discussed. It would be easy to explain why statistics and maps etc. cannot always separate the two, and the article could discuss the effects of fluoridation in water as well as the alternatives methods of distribution like salt, toothpaste etc.    would remedy my major objection to the article which is the conflation, as mentioned many times above.
+::::*My objections prior to restart remain. Since they have not been addressed, and do not seem to be understood,  I will register a formal oppose, which previously I was trying to avoid.   &mdash;[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 13:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)