Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Teeth/archive1

Teeth

Main page	Articles
Tooth	Dental caries - Tooth eruption - Dental anatomy - Tooth enamel - Tooth development

This is all the main subarticles of tooth, and they're all in pretty good shape I think. Tuf-Kat 01:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased support I helped copyedit a few of those. As far as I know, User:Dozenist wrote nearly all of them; he might have suggestions for others to add as well. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain for now per concerns raised. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but keep in mind that I am very much biased since I contributed heavily to tooth enamel, tooth development, dental caries, tooth eruption, and dental anatomy. Nonetheless, I think the articles contribute plenty of detailed information about the topic. At the moment, I cannot think of any other articles to add, but if any come to mind I will post my thoughts here. - Dozenist talk 01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think dentistry would be a good addition, but it needs a rather lot of work and isn't necessary IMO to be a complete topic on the tooth itself. Tuf-Kat 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, agreed. This list of articles is plenty, I would think, but what do you think of Maxillary central incisor? I have no experience with any featured topics, so I am not sure how well the article would fit. - Dozenist talk 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a bit confused here because a couple of the article are actually rated as unassessed. Those articles should probably go through peer review and GAC before considering this as an FT. Jay32183 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tooth eruption could be axed, frankly, as it's basically a subset of tooth development (right Dozenist?) and is probably the weakest article of the bunch. The others are all GA or FA status except for dental anatomy, which could ~~easily~~ qualify as an A or GA with ~~minimal~~ a bit of work imo. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think tooth eruption is the weakest of all the articles and could be developed more from its current state. - Dozenist talk 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are some obvious gaps in this topic (criterion #6) - what about Permanent teeth, Incisor, Canine tooth, Premolar, Molar (tooth) and Deciduous teeth? Also, the articles in the series should be linked together (criterion #4), which they are not. As a seperate issue, there are several articles unrated (Tooth, Tooth eruption and Dental anatomy). I suggest you nominate them for Good Article status. Tompw (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it can get away with not having the articles on each type of tooth; the ones included are the central articles about teeth that link off of the sub-headings of the main article. That being said, I agree that they all need to be linked together and rated before this can be promoted. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are still gaping holes in not having even all the direct subarticles of Tooth, e.g. Dental plaque, Dentin, Oral hygiene.Circeus 12:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tompw's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tompw. Witty lama 10:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Incomplete covering of topic, and articles that can should actually become GAs first. Circeus 12:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tompw. PhoenixTwo 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fail --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]