Wikipedia:Peer review/Water fluoridation/archive1

Water fluoridation[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article describes a sometimes-controversial area, and has been extensively rewritten recently and received Good Article status (a review is available). Some work has been done since GA, and a peer review should help. The goal is featured article status. I am particularly interested in clarity and weight issues, as I'm now too close to the subject.

Thanks, Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I usually don't have to work hard to find problems in articles that I review. This article is a welcome exception. The prose is wonderful, and I find that I have little to say except "well done". I should add that I am not a scientist and that I might not notice a problem that a medical professional might see. The images work well, and their licenses look fine. Here are three nitpicks, the best I could come up with:

Lead

"Other methods of fluoride therapy include fluoridation of salt, milk, and toothpaste; water fluoridation, when feasible and culturally acceptable, has substantial advantages over toothpaste, especially for subgroups at high risk." - Suggestion: terminal period rather than semicolon

Motivation

"Fluoride toothpaste, dental sealants, and other techniques are also effective in preventing tooth decay; water fluoridation, when it is culturally acceptable and technically feasible, has substantial advantages over toothpaste, especially for subgroups at high risk. - Suggestion: terminal period rather than semicolon

Effectiveness

"do not attend a dentist regularly" - Suggestion: "visit" rather than "attend"

If you find this review even mildly helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I made all the changes you suggested. I also reviewed another article, in Wikipedia:Peer review/Union busting/archive1 #Review by Eubulides. Wow, it's a lot of hard work to review articles! Eubulides (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment (I'll add more if I get a chance). I appreciate there is a US weighting to the extent that fluoridation is practised and is researched, but it does read like an American article on fluoridation, which may put off readers from the UK, Australia, Canada, etc., who may also live in a fluoridated area. Be careful when generalising US research: your healthcare and social issues are not universal. For example, PMID 17485621 is used to claim "Minority children have higher rates of untreated cavities, and poor children have less dental care, especially dental sealants." and "About two-thirds of low-income parents never give unfiltered tap water to their children: one-third always give bottled water, and one-third use filters, most of which preserve fluoride." That study looked at 216 parents/children who attended a health clinic in urban Utah, 80% "minority = Latino" and the majority poor. The reason for the low use of tap water was a cultural issue with the perceived safety of drinking water. In the UK, filtered and bottled water is a lifestyle choice of the affluent, and is a non-issue among the poor. My guess is there are no specific minority aspects to dental care in the UK, other than that minority groups are over-represented among the poor. Access to childhood dental care is not (generally) a wealth issue in the UK, though poor dental hygiene is. BTW, that study didn't seem to prove much and could be significantly biased by the small and very regional sample used -- I'm not convinced the use of bottled or filtered water, and its affects on fluoride intake among children, can be commented on if sourced to just that study. Colin°^Talk 21:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and careful reading. I changed the article to be more careful about whether statements apply only to the U.S., and to rely on Hobson et al. 2007 (PMID 17485621) less heavily. I found a stronger study on the greater use of bottled water by Latinos in the U.S., namely Williams et al. 2001 (PMID 11791167). I also found better studies about the use of toothpaste by the underprivileged, both in the U.S. and worldwide. Eubulides (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]