Talk:Orthognathic surgery

[Untitled]
I tried to put a lot of information that I know based on my clinical experience and based on published medical papers, and this is what I thought wikipedia is about, havig verifiable information published.--Ghaly 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Spot on. That IS what Wikipedia is about.  Jmlk17 09:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Image
If anyone is look to find an image try http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Search.htm. I don't know what to look for so I hope there is a dentist out there. Thanks,  Monkeyblu e  13:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Fail . This article contains numerous run-on sentences, dangling participles, and misused puctuation.  Consider this sentence under the section "The Surgeon": "Currently orthognathic surgery is mainly performed by an oral and maxillofacial surgeon almost always in collaboration with orthodontic treatment, often including braces before and after surgery, and retainers after the final removal of braces."  There are so many qualifications and ideas inserted that the sentence is no longer cohesive.  Or this one: "In recent years, techniques have been created that may help reduce the need for root canal surgery.[9], however, it is still a common complication that can occur."  The underlying structure says "Techniques have been developed, however, it is still a common complication."  What techniques?  Are the techniques really the complication discussed, or is the antecedent some other idea not included in the sentence?  (And why is there a period in the middle of the sentence?)
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Fail, because many sentences say that "something is known" or "a technique exists", but do not tell us what the something or the technique is.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Fail, because many sentences say that "something is known" or "a technique exists", but do not tell us what the something or the technique is.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass.
 * 5. Article stability? Pass.
 * 6. Images?: Fail, but not strictly necessary for GA.

This article needs considerable work, including a significant expansion and a thorough proofreading before it can attain GA status.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. — EncycloPetey (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead Link
The link for reference #2 is dead. There is a PDF on the AAOM site that seems to address the same information. I'm fairly new as an editor - is it best just update the link for the reference or is there another method that's usually followed?

Thanks, Sperrfeuer (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're well justified in simply updating the URL in this case. If you were changing to a "completely different" reference, then you might bear a responsibility to change the whole ref (besides URL) and verify that nothing attributed to the old ref elsewhere in the article gets accidentally attributed to the new ref. But in this case it looks to me (without checking) that it's a simple "URL update" type of change. So I would say go for it, and thanks for helping out. — ¾-10 17:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Dentofacial osteotomy be merged into Orthognathic surgery as they are essentially the same subject matter.CV9933 (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * support though there may be certain areas of text that will need fixing...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ozzie10aaaa I created a draft merger in my sandbox. I put a strikethrough on text that seems to be in the wrong place or not required. I'm tempted to keep the Orthognathic surgery infobox and image. I'm open to suggestions. Regards CV9933 (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * seems fine...however, prior to merging it would be prudent to get more opinions as to the actual merge proposal(since mines was the only vote...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I think there hasn't been any objections in several months because it is a fairly uncontroversial merge in terms of overall content. Regards CV9933 (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)