Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tooth enamel/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 26 July 2010 [1].

---

Tooth enamel

Review commentary

Tooth enamel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Tooth enamel
• Featured article candidates/Tooth enamel/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Tooth enamel/archive2

• Featured article review/Tooth enamel/archive1

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dentistry, User talk:Interwebs, User talk:Maralia, User talk:Jersyko, User talk:Dozenist.

FA from 2005, has some 1c issues throughout and a few unsourced paragraphs and swathes of unsourced bits within paragraphs. Subsections: There are short subsections, consisting of only one sentence or paragraph or so. Short paragraphs: There are short paragraphs, consisting of only one or two paragraphs in length. These should be expanded upon, to ensure comprehensiveness. There are (10) images used in the article - these could use an image review. The lede/intro of the article fails WP:LEAD, it should not be more than 4 paragraphs in length; this lede is 6 paragraphs, and a bunch of short choppy ones at that. Comprehensiveness: concerns about comprehensiveness, subsections including all the sub-subsections under Effects of dental procedures, Systemic conditions affecting enamel, and In other mammals could all do with some expansion and additional research. -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced the lead to 4 paras, movedsome sentences around for flow and snipped a couple of unecassary bits. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern is sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. I saw the changes to the lede, nice - but not significant enough to address above concerns. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delist: criterion three issues are numerous:
  • File:Labeledmolar.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
  • File:Labeledandfulltooth.jpg - Needs a verifiable source and a caption (per WP:WIAFA).
  • File:Enamel and dentine - ground section.jpg - Where does the source indicate a GFDL/CC license? Needs a caption.
  • File:Toothhistology11-17-05.jpg - Appears to be a derivative work. Where was the photo taken?
  • File:Enamelmineralization11-17-05.jpg - Appears to be a derivative work. Where was the photo taken?
  • File:Toothdecay.png - Derivative of File:Toothdecay.jpg, which has no source.
  • File:Topviewtooth.jpg - Needs a verifiable source.
  • File:RottweilerTeeth01.jpeg - Needs a verifiable source; cropped from what image? Эlcobbola _talk 19:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delist. Agreed. It should be delisted. Jj98 (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.