Talk:Platform switching

Platform switching was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 25, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Intro[edit]

The intro part is too short for a Good Article. --Ettrig (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the expansion of the lead and it is good, although not sufficient to reach GA standards. WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." --Ettrig (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Platform switching/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC) I will undertake this review and will be starting in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First reading[edit]

The prose in general is of a high standard. Here are a few points I noticed:

"... is related to both the texture of the surfaces of the implant and abutment at and the morphology of the implant-abutment junction (IAJ)." - This sentence is awkward and needs rephrasing.
"... that makes a difference. Difference in bone levels ..." - It is best not to finish one sentence and start the next with the same word.
"... a miminum biologic width.[6] Biologic width is the minimum thickness..." - It is best not to finish one sentence and start the next with the same word pair.
"... by platform switching implants that are 3mm apart or less or within 1.5mm of the facial aspect of a thin buccal plate ..." - This sentence is awkward and needs rephrasing.
- Please define or link the terms "crestal bone" and "buccal plate".
A number of paragraphs have no references at the end.
The references are consistent with each other in style and that is good. However they do not conform with the MOS guidelines for medicine-related articles. It would be useful to have hyperlinks where available (doi, PubMed etc), all the authors rather than et al. and the full name of the publication.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I'll get to all of these in 3 days time. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead section of this article requires expansion so that it adequately summarises the rest of the content. I have put this review on hold for one week. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final assessment[edit]

No improvements have been made to this article since the beginning of this review three weeks ago. I consider the good article criteria are not met with regard to certain prose issues, the referencing and the lead section as mentioned above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]