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)reply
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 otalk · 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Abstain for now per concerns raised. ·
j e r s y k otalk · 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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. -
Dozenisttalk 01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. -
Dozenisttalk 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 otalk · 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I think tooth eruption is the weakest of all the articles and could be developed more from its current state. -
Dozenisttalk 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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 otalk · 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Abstain for now per concerns raised. ·
j e r s y k otalk · 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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. -
Dozenisttalk 01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. -
Dozenisttalk 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 otalk · 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I think tooth eruption is the weakest of all the articles and could be developed more from its current state. -
Dozenisttalk 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply