Wikipedia:Peer review/Maxillary central incisor/archive1

Maxillary central incisor

In the string of work of dental articles, this article has the most content about a single tooth than any other. I want to know what could be done to improve the language of the article (considering the specificity of the content) and what else may need to be added. I appreciate any feedback. - Dozenist talk 02:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a read through this article seems in pretty decent shape, although it may be a little more difficult for somebody (like me) who is unfamiliar with the terminology.

Right off the bat I think it would help if a simple definition was inserted as the first sentence of the article. For example, "Maximum central incisor is a tooth mounted in the upper jaw, or maxilla, of a human. It is usually the most..." or some such statement.
The introduction is perhaps a tad too brief. Most reviewers prefer that it provide an overview of the article, summarizing the key topics. So possibly another paragraph could be added?
The "Notation" section is in need of some citations.
There are a number of terms that could do with a wikilink: mesiodistally, cervicoincisally, cingulum, labial, fossa, cementum, cervical, mesial, distal, gingival, apical, malocclusion. The existing cingulum page may need an addition.
I believe: "maxillary central incisors [are] one of only two types"
Is "greater deeper than normal lingual fossa" correct? It reads peculiarly. Perhaps "greater deeper-than-normal lingual fossa", but that's still not quite right.

I hope this was slightly helpful. Unfortunately I'm not sure what else may need to be added as I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate all the feedback. Hopefully, I will be able to address all the issues soon. Thanks again! - Dozenist talk 15:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any connection with animal teeth in general? I could tell it was human teeth by the infob ox - but in the introduction would be good.
There is a paucity of wikilinks in the later paragraphs - good to see some more here. GB 08:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I was able to address all the points listed here. Thanks again for all the input! - Dozenist talk 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]