Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tooth enamel/archive2

Tooth enamel
I believe that this might be the finest encyclopedia article about tooth enamel in the English language. The Britannica "enamel" article, by comparison, is 187 words long. While I'm not the best person to assess the scientific claims made in the article, it appears to be a very detailed examination of its subject. Articles like this one are what sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias, and more articles like this one need to be written. While the article failed in its first bid for featured status, it appears that the concerns expressed have all been addressed. - Jersyko   talk  20:49, July 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Wow. That's detailed. I'm certainly not an expert on enamel, but it seems to cover the bases. Stilgar135 16:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional support provided that Tooth enamel is incorporated in Tooth enamel and that Tooth enamel and Tooth enamel are merged in a single section. As this involves messing with it's reference system, I'm afraid to be bold. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it would be quite possible to merge Tooth enamel and Tooth enamel, and with the method for this article's references it would be very simple to do so without messing up any of the numbering. On the other hand, I think it would be innappropriate to combine the two sections of Tooth enamel and Tooth enamel for the following reasons:
 * The main focus in the destruction section (cavities, for example) address how the developmental processes of mineralization and structure (discussed in the previous section) is undone. Those two sections are very closely linked.  The enamel disorders may or may not relate to the developmental processes.
 * There is very little reason from a medical point of view to put these two topics together. Naturally, they all describe undesired states of enamel.  Nonetheless, the states described in the destruction section are from completely different etilogies.  Dental cavities, bruxism, attrition, abrasion, erosion, and abfraction begin with a normal tooth that is destroyed over a period of time. This is not the case with those under the Enamel Disorders section.  In fact, with the cases of fluorosis, amelogenesis imperfecta (the x-linked type), enamel hypoplasia, and tetracycline staining, there is a systemic effect causing a change with the enamel that is NOT destructive.  The enamel may appear a different color or is in a different amount, but the mineralization process has not been undone.
 * One last reason is that, if the article is taken as a whole, the content flows as 1) Summary, 2) Cellular and histologic appearance, 3) Development, 4) Destruction, 5) Ways to avoid or repair that destruction, 5) Other topics not previously covered. In my opinion, this logically flows even if Tooth enamel and Tooth enamel are combined in the Structure section.  It would not be preserved if destruction and systemic conditions affecting enamel were combined and discussed before the topic of repairing destroyed enamel.  By the way, I just realized that the title "Systemic Conditions Affecting Enamel" would read better than "Enamel Disorders".  Perhaps that should be changed as well.  -Dozenist  talk  02:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. I'll drop the latter merge I suggested. - Mgm|(talk) 08:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merged the section "Other anatomical features of enamel" and renamed "Enamel Disorders" to "Systemic Conditions Affecting Enamel". -Dozenist talk  11:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The online references are not properly formatted. A hyperlinked title is not sufficient. Phil s 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This kind of article brings the day Britannica will just be providing edited versions of Wikipedia articles closer. Phil s 16:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I need a little clarification to which instance you are referring because the reference format I used was modeled from Pope Benedict XVI. It was suggested somewhere in the volumes of wikipedia resources about how to cite materials to use this form.  When you click on, say, the reference currently numbered 62 (These deposits also occur in enamel and leave an appearance described as red in color and fluorescent [62].), it sends you to the "Notes" section, saying the information came from the online website, eMedicine, but gives the specific page the information is on.  The main website and the complete reference information for other notes is in the "References" section.  It may seem a bit cumbersome, but the reason for this was to be able to edit the article and move around large sections of information without messing up the numbering system of the notes.  I hope that clarifies things a bit, but please respond if I completely missed what you were talking about.  I spent so much time worrying how to cite the references with such a mix of textbooks, journals, and online articles that I definitely want to get it right.  -Dozenist  talk  02:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What I am referring to are links, in the Reference sections, to online documents, for example: "Biology of the Human Dentition". A linked title alone is not sufficient; it needs to include author, website, date if possible, etc... See Cite sources under "Web sites and articles (not from periodicals)". The idea behind this is that a title gives no information as to what the source document is. Consider this situation: someone prints the article out, and forgets what kind of document "Biology of the Human Dentition": it could just as well be from Jimmy O'Jack's Wonderful Teeth page, last updated in 1997, or a special issue published by a prestigious peer-reviewed journal. Phil s 05:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I went through and made sure the references have as much information as possible. The eMedicine quotes have their specific information in the "Notes" section. - Dozenist  talk  01:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Supporting again. Phil s 16:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. A brilliant article, only getting better over time. +sj  +  07:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - one of your notes references an Encarta article. Best not to quote from secondary sources, if there's a journal or book reference that would be much better.  Of course, Encarta don't cite their sources so one can't find out from their article where the fact derives from :) Worldtraveller 17:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent point. In that case, the encarta reference is used with an other article.  The reference from encarta ("In horses, for example, enamel is found inside the tooth as well as on the outer surface, rather than simply encasing the dentin and the pulp as it does in human teeth.") and the reference from the other source ("Instead of an overall covering of enamel like human teeth, enamel is woven throughout the horse's tooth.)" have very similar messages, so I imagine having both articles helps. - Dozenist  talk  00:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say one reference would suffice, if they both say the same thing. I'm really not in favour of citing another encyclopaedia as a reference.  I'd like to be able to quote you a policy saying it's not favoured, I thought there was one, but can't find it right now.  Anyway, I'm reading the article properly now and will comment on the rest of it soon. Worldtraveller 17:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. An article as thorough as this one raises the bar for featured articles and clearly exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. If there are formatting issues for the online soures, I invite someone with a better knowledge of bibliographies than I to address them. But this article clearly deserves featured status. --Zantastik talk  20:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I am the main author of the article, but, with the editing of many others, I believe this article addresses nearly all aspects of enamel thoroughly. Additionally, the article is written in the easiest language possible for such a scientific-focused subject.  I was very pleased to see the tiny article expand into one that was comprehensive, especially because there are very few dental-related articles in wikipedia. - Dozenist  talk  18:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Well written, easy to read, with lots of notes, sorces, references and picture. The driving force(s) behind this article really did their homework. TomStar81 05:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)