Wikipedia:Peer review/Meth mouth/archive2

Meth mouth

Previous peer review

This article is currently a GA, and I'd like to try to get it featured. In this peer review, I'd like A. advice on whether it meets the medical criteria for featured articles (MEDRS, MEDMOS, etc.) and B. whether the prose, MOS, presentation, flow, etc. meet the FA criteria. Feel free to only weigh in on A or B depending on your familiarity with medical article/prose and punctiation etc. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2, why is Novocaine singled out? I believe that Novocaine is a proprietary product containing procaine. In the UK, procaine is not used often; generally lidocaine is preferred. Exactly which reference is relevant? What does the reference say? Although the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the full article and therefore doesn't require references, I would recommend inclusion of references to help readers confirm verifiability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no reason to single Novocaine out there, I've changed it to local anesthetic, the page source I cited says "If the patient has used methamphetamine within the last 24 h, the vasoconstrictor in the local anesthetic could result in further sympathetic drive to the cardiovascular system putting the patient at increased risk for cardiac dysrhythmias, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accidents". A previous page in the same study says "Local anesthetics with epinephrine or levonordefrin must not be used while the patient is high on methamphetamine as methamphetamine potentiates the response of sympathetically innervated organs to sympathomimeticamines". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "the cost of providing increased dental treatment for the incarcerated has taxed prison budgets in some regions." "Tax" has a specific meaning with respect to expenses. Perhaps change this to a more generic phrase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, instead of "has taxed prison budgets" I've changed it to "has strained the resources of prisons". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", paragraph 2: "Caries in the drug's users can be large." What is "large" caries? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", paragraph 2: "These caries are usually on the buccal (cheek) side of the teeth." "Caries" is not a countable plural word. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I rephrased, hope this works. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed a few similar problems. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks for catching my mistakes. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Causes", paragraph 1: "In a 2007 review of the effects of the drug on dental health, Jason Goodchild of New Jersey Dental School and Mark Donaldson of Oregon Health & Science University state: "The root of all dental evil for meth abusers is xerostomia"." Why are these guys and their universities singled out with a quote? Just delete the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding how much methamphetamine "use" is necessary for "meth mouth", the NIDA said in 2010: "Long-term methamphetamine abuse has many negative health consequences, including extreme weight loss, severe dental problems ("meth mouth") ..."[1] Is this what is meant by "user"? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • On the GA review, J Milburn said "I worry that "abuser" carries a particularly judgemental overtone- a more neutral term would probably be "user". Everyone can agree that people are using meth, but whether they're "abusing" meth is a potentially questionable claim." So I removed "abuser". I'll add "long-term" as a qualifier, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)