Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Root Canal Illustration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Root Canal Illustration

#1 - Root Canal procedure: unhealthy tooth, drilling, filing, rubber filling.

#2 - Root Canal procedure: unhealthy tooth, drilling, filing, rubber filling.

This is a simplified explanation of Pulpectomy that makes the article come to life beyond simple Xrays of teeth.

• Nominate and support. First vote here - jk 23:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, even if it makes my teeth hurt. It would be nice if a higher-resolution version (or, ideally, SVG) were available (but SVG cannot currently be uploaded, let alone viewed). A few odd white flecks in the brown blob at the bottom could perhaps be removed (or explained?). (Increased Res, fixed flecks, Thx!--jk) --Andrew 02:18, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good graphics. Also: Could a dentist check if they are correct? I know these only from the receiving end (ouch!) -- Chris 73 Talk 10:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- BRIAN0918  05:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Informative and crisp image. Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Based on Metju12's vote below, I'm afraid I'll have to change to oppose until facts have been checked and changed. Mgm|^(talk) 19:32, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm sorry, but it isn't correct. I now, I'm dentist. The cavity must be wide open, drill seems funny, endo-instrument is file not needle, rubber filling must be till end of canal. --Metju12 08:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My dear doctor! I have made changes based on your suggestions and our conversation in Talk pages. I think I've addressed everything. Do you support this image? jk 01:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support #1. Great! It's perfect, brief, well-arranged. It's not exact but enough popular. JK, you're skillful --Metju12 06:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose #2. Just for now. I gonna talk to jk. --Metju12 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support. There was an earlier nomination that prompted me to look at some of jk's images, and this is the one I would have nominated (except that I am a little too squeamish on medical images). I wouldn't have spotted User:Metju12's expert objections, but assuming they have been addressed satisfactorily I would have to support as the standard of illustration is very good. Oh hang on, there is a rather nice new mouse illustratio now as well. -- Solipsist 01:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support #2. Oppose #1. (with respect to #1) I don't see how those drawings of teeth illustrate the same anatomy as the X-rays in the article Root canal; the drawings seem to over-simplify the structure - Bevo 17:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point. See the revised molar version on the entry for root canal. jk 21:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice use of illustration. I don't see the inherent problem between this and the X-ray photo, and if the dentist doesn't object to its accuracy then I'm not sure what the problem is. --Fastfission 14:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, (with respect to #1) the X-rays show two "legs" of root for each tooth. The drawings show only one per tooth. In a typical Root Canal, are both "legs" involved, or only one? If the drawings at least showed the same view as the X-ray in the article, I'd have a much better understanding (without having to ask). Compare to the image at http://www.endodovgan.com/images/Retx_file.jpg - Bevo 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The original image is no longer featured in the Root canal article, but an improved version by the same Wikipedian is (see #2 above) - Bevo 22:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, its a bit of an edit conflict. I was just working through the closed nominations, and jk was updating with the new image whilst I was trying to promote the original. -- Solipsist 22:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Promoted original. +7/-1. ed g2s • talk 14:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved this nomination back to the nominations page. The original illustration is not used on any Wikipedia article, and is therefore not eligible as a Featured picture. Illustration #2 is the one used in Root canal. - Bevo 16:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, I was about to promote #1 on the 22nd March when jk uploaded the double root version #2, to address Bevo's objections. As far as I can see the new version is better in every way, although user User:Metju12 has switched back to objecting, presumably on some issues of detail which are easily corrected. Lets give it another couple of days, but sssuming that jk has addressed Metju12's & Bevo's objections with the new version and there are no new objections from previous voters, then we should promote version #2. -- Solipsist 21:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The original the second version had equal votes, but after I promoted I noticed the second one was being used, so I changed it to the second version.
• Promoted #2. +7/-1. ed g2s • talk 14:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)