Wikipedia:Peer review/Dental implant/archive1

Dental implant
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the article has gone through a major change at the request of the DentalProject group because it was WAY too technical, poorly referenced and had many WP:COI issues. I've cleaned it up and rewritten it so it's geared towards a general reader. Not a patient, not a dentist. Looking for ways to make it a better wiki article. Thanks, Ian Furst (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Realized that I listed the article as a "list" in peer review by accident. Moved request to more appropriate category.

Comments from LT910001
Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article! It's looking very good and is very easy to read. Comments: Thank you Ian Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC) ✅Ian Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC) ✅Ian Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC) ✅ - I'd gone without the third-order headings to simplify the TOC, but everyone seems to dislike it with bold, have switched it back.
 * Easy to read. You've done a good job there. I like how you've integrated the images with the text
 * Take a look at the list of good articles (here: Wikipedia:Good_articles), especially the ones in the "Biology and Medicine" category for comparison.
 * It's fairly non-standared to see the 'main' and 'see also' tags at the bottom of paragraphs - these are generally placed at the top.
 * Similarly, it's quite non-standard to have so much bold text, which detracts from readability. Instead, you could consider wikilinking to the respective articles.
 * Additionally, the heading stucture is non-standard. Headings that are in bold can be replaced with lower-order headings by adding more equals signs (eg === -> ==== )
 * Sources play an important role in medical articles and Wikiproject medicine (here: WP:MED) we are very careful about what sources are used. Have a look at the guideline here: WP:MEDRS, which states in general that we try not to use 'primary' sources (such as direct studies), but instead 'secondary' sources, such as meta-analysis and reviews. I see some primary studies in your reference list and can almost guarantee that this will be a problem in any GA review.
 * going thru this now, I've actually removed a lot of primary studies from a previous version, replaced with secondary but have left in with landmark studies (e.g. #26) or Cochrane/metaanalysis/systematic reviews (e.g. all studies by Espisito) - will go thru again, however - there are some I can still replace. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, several paragraphs lack sources
 * will do Ian Furst (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope this isn't too much to take in. I would encourage you to peruse some of the existing GA article in the biology and medicine category to get a feel for how articles are formatted and styled on Wikipedia. I wish you all the best and please feel free to continue the discussion below. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)