Talk:Orthognathic surgery: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:50, 30 April 2011

Medicine Start‑class High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Orthognathic surgery was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 19, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

I tried to put a lot of information that I know based on my clinical experience and based on published medical papers, and this is what I thought wikipedia is about, havig verifiable information published.--Ghaly 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. That IS what Wikipedia is about. Jmlk17 09:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

If anyone is look to find an image try http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Search.htm. I don't know what to look for so I hope there is a dentist out there. Thanks, Monkeyblue 13:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail. This article contains numerous run-on sentences, dangling participles, and misused puctuation. Consider this sentence under the section "The Surgeon": "Currently orthognathic surgery is mainly performed by an oral and maxillofacial surgeon almost always in collaboration with orthodontic treatment, often including braces before and after surgery, and retainers after the final removal of braces." There are so many qualifications and ideas inserted that the sentence is no longer cohesive. Or this one: "In recent years, techniques have been created that may help reduce the need for root canal surgery.[9], however, it is still a common complication that can occur." The underlying structure says "Techniques have been developed, however, it is still a common complication." What techniques? Are the techniques really the complication discussed, or is the antecedent some other idea not included in the sentence? (And why is there a period in the middle of the sentence?)

2. Factually accurate?: Fail, because many sentences say that "something is known" or "a technique exists", but do not tell us what the something or the technique is.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail, because many sentences say that "something is known" or "a technique exists", but do not tell us what the something or the technique is.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass.

5. Article stability? Pass.

6. Images?: Fail, but not strictly necessary for GA.

This article needs considerable work, including a significant expansion and a thorough proofreading before it can attain GA status.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— EncycloPetey (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link

The link for [[ http://www.aaoms.org/ortho_criteria.php%7Creference #2]] is dead. There is a PDF on the AAOM site that seems to address the same information. I'm fairly new as an editor - is it best just update the link for the reference or is there another method that's usually followed?

Thanks, Sperrfeuer (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 When these issues are addressed, the article can be [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|renominated]].  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|reassessed]].  Thank you for your work so far.<!-- Template:FGAN --></div>— [[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
+== Dead Link ==
+The link for [[ http://www.aaoms.org/ortho_criteria.php|reference #2]] is dead. There is a [http://www.aaoms.org/docs/practice_mgmt/ortho_criteria.pdf PDF on the AAOM site] that seems to address the same information. I'm fairly new as an editor - is it best just update the link for the reference or is there another method that's usually followed?
+Thanks, [[User:Sperrfeuer|Sperrfeuer]] ([[User talk:Sperrfeuer|talk]]) 12:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)