Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dental implant/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's had major overhaul. It was WAY too technical (e.g. a debate among dentists instead of an article for a layperson), had many WP:COI issues and depended heavily on primary sources. The entire text and structure was changed and many pictures added. References are almost all either textbook, meta analysis or Cochrane reviews. A few primary papers remain, but these are "landmark" papers that discuss a very small topic in the article. It needs an editorial review especially for information that comes off as too technical. Thanks, Ian Furst (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

[edit]
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

concepts are difficult to describe without pictures; each gallery is appropriate in my opinion as per; "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". Same with use of GIFs in article, only used where stepwise progression is useful tool in understanding a concept or when showing the implant then xray allows the reader to better understand a concept.
titles added and reformatted as per Wikipedia:Galleries  Done
Went back and forth a lot on this; finally decided the ToC looked too complex and no one would use it, so I've removed the 3rd order headings
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • are considered Done
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]  Done
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” Done major rework of lead and first section to satisfy
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Can't find this disambiguation page, search all the code and it's not there??
I looked through the codes and progrmas and the link is NOT there. Most have been a glich in the JavaScript program. -(tJosve05a (c) 10:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(tJosve05a (c) 23:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]