Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Teeth/archive1

Teeth
This is all the main subarticles of tooth, and they're all in pretty good shape I think. Tuf-Kat 01:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Biased support I helped copyedit a few of those.  As far as I know, User:Dozenist wrote nearly all of them; he might have suggestions for others to add as well. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now per concerns raised. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, but keep in mind that I am very much biased since I contributed heavily to tooth enamel, tooth development, dental caries, tooth eruption, and dental anatomy. Nonetheless, I think the articles contribute plenty of detailed information about the topic. At the moment, I cannot think of any other articles to add, but if any come to mind I will post my thoughts here. - Dozenist  talk  01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do think dentistry would be a good addition, but it needs a rather lot of work and isn't necessary IMO to be a complete topic on the tooth itself. Tuf-Kat 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed. This list of articles is plenty, I would think, but what do you think of Maxillary central incisor? I have no experience with any featured topics, so I am not sure how well the article would fit. - Dozenist  talk  03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a bit confused here because a couple of the article are actually rated as unassessed. Those articles should probably go through peer review and GAC before considering this as an FT. Jay32183 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tooth eruption could be axed, frankly, as it's basically a subset of tooth development (right Dozenist?) and is probably the weakest article of the bunch. The others are all GA or FA status except for dental anatomy, which could easily qualify as an A or GA with minimal a bit of work imo. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think tooth eruption is the weakest of all the articles and could be developed more from its current state. - Dozenist talk  14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There are some obvious gaps in this topic (criterion #6) - what about Permanent teeth, Incisor, Canine tooth, Premolar, Molar (tooth) and Deciduous teeth? Also, the articles in the series should be linked together (criterion #4), which they are not. As a seperate issue, there are several articles unrated (Tooth, Tooth eruption and Dental anatomy). I suggest you nominate them for Good Article status. Tom pw (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it can get away with not having the articles on each type of tooth; the ones included are the central articles about teeth that link off of the sub-headings of the main article. That being said, I agree that they all need to be linked together and rated before this can be promoted.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are still gaping holes in not having even all the direct subarticles of Tooth, e.g. Dental plaque, Dentin, Oral hygiene.Circeus 12:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tompw's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tompw. Witty lama 10:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Incomplete covering of topic, and articles that can should actually become GAs first. Circeus 12:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tompw. PhoenixTwo 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fail --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)