Talk:Maxillary central incisor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Maxillary central incisor has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article was previously a Current Collaboration for WikiProject Dentistry.
WikiProject Medicine This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the project or you can direct questions about the rating system here.
Good article GA rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

Contents

[edit] Abnormalities?

The article said that shovel-shaped incisors are regarded as a variation, but it is under "Tooth abnormalities". Is it just a variation, or is it abnormal? But shovel-shaped incisors is a trait of sinodonty, which means that it doesn't seem to be abnormal, at least in some Asian population. --Starryboy 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Great question. Apparently, it is usually "abnormal" when found in non-asian and non-native american populations, and in fact most sources about oral pathology discuss shovel-shaped incisors as an "anomaly". Interestingly enough, I currently cannot find any reference to shovel-shaped incisors in my textbook on dental anatomy, but I can find it in my oral pathology textbook. It is a "variation" when found in asian and native-american populations. I had not finished expanding on that topic, but I wanted to get the sources correct to explain the topic a little more. - Dozenist talk 19:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Article Rating

I am rating this article as a B class. It certainly has the most information currently among all the tooth articles, but this one can still address some of the issues raised on the peer review. Considering the topic, I think the importance clearly deserves to be placed as High. - Dozenist talk 18:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold and review

A very good article overall, comprehensive and detailed. A few comments:

  1. Please replace hyphens (-) with en dashes (–) on ranges of numbers (such as "3-4 months of age") as per WP:DASH.
  2. The second paragraph of the lead could use a little copy editing:
    • "Though relatively the same, there are some minor differences..."—IMHO, you could just drop "Though relatively the same". If the differences between the deciduous and permanent teeth are minor, they must be somewhat similar :)
    • "...has a greater length than width."—could be "is longer than it is wide"? That would be clearer and more to the point.
    • "making it one of two types teeth that do so"—should be "two types of teeth". I presume the other is the mandibular central incisor? You should clarify this, even though it may seem obvious.
    • "As with all teeth, variations exist among people"—which variations? In shape, color, overall appearance? Also, mentioning one or two of the systemic diseases that may alter their appearance might be nice.
  3. Could Image:06-10-06centralincisors.jpg be placed higher up in the article?
  4. This is just a suggestion, but anyway: when citing a certain textbook more than once, you may do the following to streamline the References section:
    • Rename the "References" section to "Notes".
    • If the textbook is cited more than once, simply note the author, year and page numbers in the inline citations.
    • Then, provide the full citation under a "References" section (now below "Notes".) Acute myeloid leukemia uses this format; you may have a look over there for examples.

As I said, this is a very comprehensive article. Although there is plenty of jargon, it all appears to be correctly wikilinked (first instances at least). Also, good job placing non-breaking spaces between numbers and units of measurement, that's a common oversight. Once the issues I raised have been addressed, I'll have no problem listing this as a Good article. Fvasconcellos 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

I've re-read the article and I believe it does meet Good Article criteria. I maintain my suggestion for referencing as above, but it is that—a suggestion—and as it is not mandated by guideline or policy, it should not affect my decision to list this article as a GA. Congratulations, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)