Wikipedia:Peer review/Dental implant/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has gone through a major change at the request of the DentalProject group because it was WAY too technical, poorly referenced and had many WP:COI issues. I've cleaned it up and rewritten it so it's geared towards a general reader. Not a patient, not a dentist. Looking for ways to make it a better wiki article.
Thanks, Ian Furst (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Realized that I listed the article as a "list" in peer review by accident. Moved request to more appropriate category.
Comments from LT910001
[edit]Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article! It's looking very good and is very easy to read. Comments:
- Easy to read. You've done a good job there. I like how you've integrated the images with the text
Thank you Ian Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Take a look at the list of good articles (here: Wikipedia:Good_articles), especially the ones in the "Biology and Medicine" category for comparison.
- It's fairly non-standared to see the 'main' and 'see also' tags at the bottom of paragraphs - these are generally placed at the top.
DoneIan Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Similarly, it's quite non-standard to have so much bold text, which detracts from readability. Instead, you could consider wikilinking to the respective articles.
DoneIan Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, the heading stucture is non-standard. Headings that are in bold can be replaced with lower-order headings by adding more equals signs (eg === -> ==== )
Done - I'd gone without the third-order headings to simplify the TOC, but everyone seems to dislike it with bold, have switched it back.
- Sources play an important role in medical articles and Wikiproject medicine (here: WP:MED) we are very careful about what sources are used. Have a look at the guideline here: WP:MEDRS, which states in general that we try not to use 'primary' sources (such as direct studies), but instead 'secondary' sources, such as meta-analysis and reviews. I see some primary studies in your reference list and can almost guarantee that this will be a problem in any GA review.
- going thru this now, I've actually removed a lot of primary studies from a previous version, replaced with secondary but have left in with landmark studies (e.g. #26) or Cochrane/metaanalysis/systematic reviews (e.g. all studies by Espisito) - will go thru again, however - there are some I can still replace. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, several paragraphs lack sources
- will do Ian Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope this isn't too much to take in. I would encourage you to peruse some of the existing GA article in the biology and medicine category to get a feel for how articles are formatted and styled on Wikipedia. I wish you all the best and please feel free to continue the discussion below. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)