Talk:Impacted wisdom teeth/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 18:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• I propose taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

First reading

• I'm leaving the lead for the time being, and will assess it later.
• "Of these predictors ..." - This is a curious statement, as the first part of the paragraph is about how impacted teeth are described. reword
• "Vertically, Class A impaction..." - I find this sentence confusing. removed example, left in classification system.
• "Impactions completely covered ..." - This sentence does not seem grammatically right, with a different subject in the second half of the sentence from the first. expanded
• "Peptostreptococcus, Fusobacterium, and Bacteroides" - Scientific names should be in italics. Done
• "Crowding of the front teeth is not believed to be caused by the eruption of wisdom teeth although this is a reason many dental clinicians use to justify wisdom teeth extraction." - This sentence is tagged as needing an update. new citation added, conclusions unchanged
• "Wisdom teeth continue to move into adulthood ..." - It sounds as if it is the teeth that are becoming adult rather than their owner. Done
• "When there is a portion of gums overlying the wisdom tooth that has become infected (called an operculum)," - I don't much care for a "portion of gums", and you have explained what an "operculum" is earlier in the article. Done
• "Long-term complications can include periodontal complications ..." - These studies need citations. Done
• "... however it is of very low quality evidence and high risk of bias." - This sentence seems grammatically incorrect too. this is a highly controversial paragraph, concensus reached with many including leader from Cochrane. I'm reluctant to change the wording. It is straight out of the study

• "The Cochrane review of surgical removal versus retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth suggests that ... , however it is of very low quality evidence and high risk of bias." - Leaving out the middle part of the sentence better illustrates what I mean. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done I see what you mean. It should read, "The Cochrane review found...". "The studies reviewed in the Cochrane review were of low quality....". It's two thoughts merged into one, so I've broken it into two separate sentences.

• "high risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury" - This phrase occurs twice in the same paragraph. Done

• That's all I have time for now, I will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Now returning to look at the lead and how well it summarises the rest of the article -

• "Common accepted hypothesis that determine eruption is" - This sentence could do with being completely singular or completely plural. Done Removed it entirely, as it's a poorly worded rehash of the information in the next paragraph.
• "The condition affects up to 72% of the Swedish population." - This is mentioned in the lead but not elsewhere and could perhaps be omitted.  it's discussed in context of the epidemiology, in that section (last sentence, 2nd paragraph). It's the only item in the lead that addresses frequency of disease.

I have taken the cite out of the lead and have added that it is a Swedish study in the Epidemiology section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• On the whole the lead is satisfactory, but I feel that the article has too many single-sentence or very short paragraphs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is an unfortunate byproduct of my writing style. My tendency is to single-sentence-paragraphs common to web pages. I'll slowly work my way thru to make the writing more fluid. Ian Furst (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• I've made some changes (e.g. first paragraph) to remove the short sentences, and make the paragraph structure more complex. This is not my forte, and hope it's OK. Ian Furst (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made a couple of changes, which you can reverse if you wish, and have reread the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

GA criteria

• The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
• The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
• The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
• The article is neutral.
• The article is stable.
• The images are relevant, have suitable captions and are appropriately licensed.

• Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)