This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our
project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our
talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
A fact from Dentistry in ancient Rome appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 July 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 12:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I believe this hook is good enough to appear in the Did you know? section because it will shock the reader. This fact is so disgusting and seemingly counterintuitive that the reader will be desperate to know more.
Created by
Graearms (
talk). Self-nominated at 14:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC).reply
Not a full review, but I've modified the hook slightly to conform with DYK standards (per
WP:DYKRULES the article needs to be in bold).
Epicgenius (
talk) 16:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Article meets DYK requirements and is free from close paraphrasing. A QPQ has been done. The hook is interesting to a broad audience and is cited inline; as I don't have access to the journal articles used I am assuming good faith on their reliability.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 13:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Graearms and
Narutolovehinata5: did the Romans use urine on teeth, trusting the ammonia within would work its chemistry, or did they extract raw ammonia from urine and apply that? One source claims they made a toothpaste from human urine, which the other two don't – come to think of it, that's a pretty great hook of its own:
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/
they) 12:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Theleekycauldron and
Narutolovehinata5: I personally think the alternate hook works too. I actually think it works better because most people are probably more familiar with toothpaste than ammonia.
Graearms (
talk) 13:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, so my issue right now is that the article doesn't refer to the Romans using urine as toothpaste. Maybe instead of using ammonia, just say that they used urine to whiten teeth? Go straight to the point, don't use the ammonia detail.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 03:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)reply
When I think about it, the ammonia detail seems excessive. Like, did the Romans even know about ammonia? Was the ammonia use by the Romans an accident? If it was, not mentioning ammonia and simply saying urine may be the safer option here.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 13:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Alright then, I'll remove it
Graearms (
talk) 14:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you. This will be good to go once the article specifies "human" urine (right now it simply says "urine" without the human part).
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 01:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
SL93: any chance you could stick this in the quirky slot of P2? We're still low on non-U.S. non-bios...
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/
they) 12:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)reply
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our
project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our
talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
A fact from Dentistry in ancient Rome appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 July 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 12:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I believe this hook is good enough to appear in the Did you know? section because it will shock the reader. This fact is so disgusting and seemingly counterintuitive that the reader will be desperate to know more.
Created by
Graearms (
talk). Self-nominated at 14:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC).reply
Not a full review, but I've modified the hook slightly to conform with DYK standards (per
WP:DYKRULES the article needs to be in bold).
Epicgenius (
talk) 16:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Article meets DYK requirements and is free from close paraphrasing. A QPQ has been done. The hook is interesting to a broad audience and is cited inline; as I don't have access to the journal articles used I am assuming good faith on their reliability.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 13:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Graearms and
Narutolovehinata5: did the Romans use urine on teeth, trusting the ammonia within would work its chemistry, or did they extract raw ammonia from urine and apply that? One source claims they made a toothpaste from human urine, which the other two don't – come to think of it, that's a pretty great hook of its own:
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/
they) 12:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Theleekycauldron and
Narutolovehinata5: I personally think the alternate hook works too. I actually think it works better because most people are probably more familiar with toothpaste than ammonia.
Graearms (
talk) 13:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, so my issue right now is that the article doesn't refer to the Romans using urine as toothpaste. Maybe instead of using ammonia, just say that they used urine to whiten teeth? Go straight to the point, don't use the ammonia detail.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 03:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)reply
When I think about it, the ammonia detail seems excessive. Like, did the Romans even know about ammonia? Was the ammonia use by the Romans an accident? If it was, not mentioning ammonia and simply saying urine may be the safer option here.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 13:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Alright then, I'll remove it
Graearms (
talk) 14:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you. This will be good to go once the article specifies "human" urine (right now it simply says "urine" without the human part).
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 01:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
SL93: any chance you could stick this in the quirky slot of P2? We're still low on non-U.S. non-bios...
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/
they) 12:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)reply