Talk:Human tooth/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2007 and the GA requirements have been "tightened up", so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * This article is generally compliant with the requirements of WP:WIAGA, them therefore going to mark this as a "keep" and will update the Article History accordingly.
 * The WP:lead is, arguably, the weakest section. Approximately half of the current lead is unrelated to human, or even mammal, teeth; and what is there provides (sort of) an introduction to teeth (which is only part of what the lead should do), it makes no attempt however to summarise the main points of the article.
 * The Fossil record section is also sparse, and has been flagged as since March 2009.
 * I do not consider that these two defects are not sufficient to warrant a "Hold" or withdrawal of GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)