Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tooth development/archive1 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Tooth_development/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 02:26, 22 July 2011 [1].

Notified: Medicine WP, Dentistry WP (no user with over 20 edits to the article has been active since 2009)

I am nominating this featured article for review because after a notification of work needed in April, nothing has been done on this article. Here are some of the issues:

• Referencing is the largest issue with this article, as can be seen by the multiple citation and clarification needed tags.
• Multiple dead links, leading to even more of the article being essentially unreferenced.
• What makes ref #66 ("Ovarian teratoma (dermoid) with teeth") a reliable source?
• Many web references missing access dates.
• Prose needs some major work. For example, just from the Tooth development in animals section: "Teeth is atavic structure" and "Fish have many specialized bony structures,[77] it exist with".
• Many, many, many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which make the relevant sections very choppy and list-like.
• Technicality and over-referencing. For example, from the Molecular biology section, "Enamel knots as a signaling center in the tooth morphogenesis and odontoblast differentiation.[60][61][62][63]" First, what does this mean? It is complete gobbledegook to me. Second, why does it need four references?
• Technicality tag on the top of the article (it was on the talk page, so I moved it).

Overall, needs some major work on references, technicality, prose and MOS before it is back up to FA quality. Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article criteria mentioned as issues in the review section include referencing, prose, MOS compliance and cleanup banners. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, agree with the concerns per Dana boomer (talk · contribs) above. No effort has been made since the FAR started. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Nothing has been done to this article since I nominated it for FAR. Needs major work (outlined above) before it is back to FA quality. Dana boomer (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Have to agree that no one has shown effort on this article in order to keep its status. Brad (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above, nothing's happened since FAR started. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.