Talk:Impacted wisdom teeth/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to review this article which was nominated for "Good article" over six months ago and is the second oldest unreviewed article from the 532 articles currently nominated. I am not particularly knowledgeable about teeth and dentistry so will be looking at the article from a layman's perspective. I will start my review in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

In general I find this article well-written and easy to understand and I have removed the "multiple issues" tag which I think is unnecessary. The paragraph on another classification system is the exception, being jargon-laden, and I note that it was added recently by an editor other than the nominator. I note that the nominator is an irregular contributor to Wikipedia and may therefore not be quick to respond to this review, but other editor's with knowledge of the topic are welcome to respond here or make the improvements I am suggesting to the text of the article. Here are some points I noticed:

"One review found that 11% of teeth will have evidence of disease and are symptomatic ..." - Does this refer to teeth in general or just wisdom teeth? Done
"mandibular third molars" - general readers may not know this means lower jaw. 2 instances
"occlusal plane" and "occlusal surface" - more terms unfamiliar to general readers. Done
"Impacted wisdom teeth without a communication to the mouth, that have no pathology associated with the tooth and have not caused tooth resorption on the blocking tooth rarely have symptoms." - Is this statement (which could use an extra comma) covered by the reference in the next paragraph? ref and commas added
" As the teeth near the mouth during normal development, people sometimes report mild pressure of other symptoms similar to teething" - This statement also needs a reference, and "near the mouth" seems rather an odd way of saying "start breaking through the gum", surely they are already in the mouth. removed sentence. Was attempting to say that teething hurts too, but off topic. The entire article is about impacted teeth not normal eruption.
"Impactions completely covered by bone and soft tissue have a low rate of clinically significant pathology – generally small cysts or uncommon tumors that form from the residual epithelial remnants around the crowns of the teeth." - This statement also needs a reference. Done
There is a stray "of people."
"Periodontal probing depths" - needs explaining or linking. link added
"serum inflammatory markers" - needs explaining or linking. Done
"radiographic disease" - needs explaining or linking. reworded
"gingiva" - needs explaining or linking. reworded sentence and added links
The section "Wisdom teeth removal" lacks citations. Done
"In 2000, the first National Institute of Clinical Excellence ..." - What does the "first" refer to? removed; referred to first set of guidelines
"They also point to the fact that the there is an increase..." - Extra "the". Done
The first paragraph in the section Coronectomy lacks citations. Done
"The prognosis for impacted wisdom teeth depends on the depth of the impaction. When they lack a communication to the mouth, the main risk is the chance of cyst or neoplasm formation which is relatively uncommon." - Is this statement (which could use an extra comma) covered by the reference in the next paragraph? citation added

marked this as "citation needed". I don't think the statement is correct. Yes some odontogenic cysts (eg Keratocysts) develop at the site of a third molar but to my knowledge third molars do not change into neoplasms. If no citation comes forward I shall delete this. El Mustafa (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC) qualified statement: ...tissues around the tooth (such as the dental follicle)...[reply]

Wikilink Plato, Hippocrates, Charles Darwin, Paolo Mantegazza, Tomes. Done

That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review User:Cwmhiraeth, I didn't think anyone would get to it. Thank you for the email too, I've been on a wikibreak. I'll start making changes this weekend and hit. Best. Ian Furst (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush. My computer is out of action after a thunderstorm and it will take me a few days to get it sorted out. Cwmhiraeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.198.79 (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put this review on hold for one week. Improvements made in this period (by anyone) will influence my decision as to whether or not to list the article as a good article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been ample time for the improvements mentioned above to be dealt with. A few have been actioned but most have not. I believe this article is close to meeting the GA criteria but does not quite do so. It fails Criterion 2b in that it is insufficiently referenced in places. It also fails Criterion 1a in that some of the prose is difficult for the uninformed reader to understand because of a lack of wikilinking or explanation of technical terms used. When these matters have been addressed it can be renominated for GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]