Talk:Wisdom tooth

Operculum

I have done my homework but am not entirely confident about my recent edit. Is an operculum considered an, or part of an, impaction? Is it a type, or part, of soft tissue impaction? I believe it's neither, but may be wrong.

Etymology

The previous Etymology reinterated the common misconception in the Netherlands that the Dutch word derives from 'far-standing molars', and that the English word is a mistranslation of this word. Even in the Netherlands this is nothing more than folk etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.61.67 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wisdom tooth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100728221912/http://www.aaoms.org:80/wisdom_teeth.php to http://www.aaoms.org/wisdom_teeth.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Commentary

Overall, the article was well written and informative. It provided general facts and the articles cited were mostly reliable. The citations themselves were correctly written and all of the links to the sources were functioning. However, there were certain locations within the article that were missing a citation and explicitly stated, [citation needed]. In other words, there was information provided and no citation given so this information cannot be considered reliable. Moreover, the length of the article was surprisingly short. I say surprisingly because I feel that there was more that could have been said about the subject of wisdom teeth. There were only five sections within the article and each were significantly brief. In my opinion, the subsections of "Anatomy" and "History" were lacking information and were underrepresented. There was an apparent content gap with regards to the topic of wisdom teeth and the evolution of wisdom teeth. The author briefly mentioned that the number of wisdom teeth located in any individual may vary and this may be due to a particular gene or genes. I believe this information could have been expanded on and explained in a tone regarding evolution, why there is such variation, and how wisdom teeth prevalence has changed over years. Dpr78 (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Darling Roajs

No pictures of healthy wisdom teeth

Given this article is on Wisdom teeth, and not impacted wisdom teeth, shouldn't there be at least one illustration of non-impacted, correctly aligned wisdom teeth?

Not an unreasonable request, but pictures of abnormal are more common than the unremarkable. If you can find one, post it.Dig Deeper (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just make sure they're within our rights. ECPBlue (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right 122.163.244.211 (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)