Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meth mouth/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 17:51, 2 October 2012 [1].
Meth mouth edit
Meth mouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most notorious side effects of methamphetamine abuse is the horrible things it can do to your teeth. The picture we have in the article is actually somewhat mild compared to what's out there. I've been working on this article off and on for a few months, and I think it's ready to run the FAC gauntlet. I received significant assistance from a number of users while preparing this article; I'm particularly thankful for the work of MathewTownsend, J Milburn, Acdixon, and Axl. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
- Dozenist's image doesn't have EXIF data, but his later ones do and, considering the age of the file, quite acceptable.
- I'm going to ping a Commons admin to look at Psychonaught's deleted images. I don't see any evidence that this is a copyvio, but I note that the editor has previously uploaded incompatibly licensed images before. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We (the Commons admin and I) have agreed that the image by Psychonaught is questionable. Perhaps something at Justice.gov would be free (be sure to check the copyright status, if any) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I removed the suspicious image for now, I'll look around later to see if there are any good candidates. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
- Support on prose and images. Short but reads well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thanks for the quick review. I'll let you know when I find another good image to add. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That Justice link might have some, but I can't open it on this connection (for some reason) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, how's File:Powder meth in foil.jpg look? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better, but Google Image Search showed some crystals too (those're prettier) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, for some reason the DEA watermarked the ones on their page with crystals. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming the images are DEA works (and thus public domain) we can remove the watermarks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll try to upload some of them sooner or later. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thanks for the quick review. I'll let you know when I find another good image to add. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The peer review process closed before I finished my comments. However MathewTownsend alluded to my main concern now. The guideline WP:MEDMOS recommends a format for medical articles. The article lacks any information on "Prognosis", "Epidemiology" or "History". I know that Mark Arsten has looked for sources. No doubt he would argue that the absence of sources makes these points "not actionable". While that may be true, the criteria require that the article is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details". Indeed there is so much missing information that I question the validity of GA status. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I see your point here--I certainly would like to have more information on this. You're right about my perspective, in that I don't think that this is an actionable oppose. I think that 1b and 1c of WP:WIAFA must be taken together to some extent, and I think this passes by virtue of being as thorough as possible, given the available sourcing. Also, I apologize for closing the PR abruptly, I had mistakenly assumed that you had finished your review (my fault). Mark Arsten (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Axl's points. Not enough reliance on WP:MEDRS and too much on newspaper articles. Doesn't follow WP:MEDMOS. A good peer review might have helped, but it was closed just as it was getting started. I wonder if enough info on "meth mouth" exists, whether the condition is restricted to the use of methamphetamine or also occurs with the use of similar drugs, whether the catchy name and startling pic is responsible for the coverage it has received (e.g. it's use on a billboard advert) rather than the fact that the condition is restricted to methamphetamine users. Why is there is so little concrete info available about the condition if it's such a pressing public health and fiscal problem? MathewTownsend (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.