Talk:Meth mouth/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a very interesting topic. I've never reviewed a medical article before, so I'm going to need to take care to read the rules about medical sources, but at first glance this looks strong. Review (or, more likely, the first part of the review) to follow shortly. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Meth mouth is a dental disease" Is it really a "disease"? Would "condition" not be more accurate?
  • Agreed, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• 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.
  • I hadn't thought of that, but I'm fine with the change. I left one occurrence in since it was a quote. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Meth, a highly addictive drug that produces a dramatic increase in energy and euphoria, is easily accessible in most areas of the United States." I worry that this US mention risks giving the article a US-bias; do you perhaps have a source stating that the meth problem is more serious in the US than elsewhere? (This is also a very real problem in the culture section)
  • Yeah, I removed that for now, it is pretty common in some other areas. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "cervical regions of teeth, where the tooth surface narrows at the junction of the crown and the root" Some links here would be helpful.
  • Added a couple links. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "occasional hygiene" Odd phrase
  • Rephrased, a bit wordier but hopefully better now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that the last paragraph of "characteristics" belongs there. It's important information, certainly; it could even be given its own section.
  • Moved it to its own section, hope this works. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "the mechanism by which it does is unclear" > the mechanism by which it does so is unclear?
  • Good catch, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• It seems very odd that the first wikilink to saliva is so far down the article
  • Yep, my mistake, fixed now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "salivatory nuclei: the drug is thought to decrease saliva by stimulating inhibitory alpha 2 adrenoreceptors in the nuclei" Suddenly very technical- explanation/links? (Also, is this directly related to the following line? It's not clear right now.)
  • Yeah, that was pretty messy. I've simplified it some. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• "the ADA" American Dental Association or something, I'm assuming? A link would be good.
  • Oops, written out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "that Pilocarpine" Does this need a capital P?
  • Nope, removed. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• The article really feels like it is lacking a picture- I came across this one on Commons, if you're interested.
  • Ok, I just put it in. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• You provide publishers for journals and some newspapers, but not others. Consistency is good. Also, look at the way you list the authors on the Treadwell source.
  • Ok, I think I've standardized those two issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally a very strong article. I want to double-check the rules on sources in medical articles (and a few other bits and pieces) but these should give you some things to look at- the biggest failings seem to be the lack of an image (which may be unavoidable) and the possible US-centrism (which should be avoidable). Note that I've made a few small changes. J Milburn (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a couple references about meth mouth in other countries. There is a lot more coverage of it in the US than elsewhere. There are a number of articles that discuss meth in other countries, but I've only seen those two that talk specifically about the dental effects of meth in a particular location outside the US. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the review, I'll try to get started on those soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've done most of your points, most of them were fairly easily fixable. Hopefully the wording is a bit more clear now--MathewTownsend has just given the article a copyedit as well, so hopefully the prose should be in Ok shape. The international sourcing is tricky to track down, but I got a couple in. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Great work on the fixes. I'm certainly not an expert on medical literature (or Wikipedia's policies on it) but I am happy that the journals and books are suitable for a medical article, and that the newspapers are appropriate for the non-specialised information for which they are cited. As such, I'm happy to promote the article at this time. I still think the article is a little US-centric, but I think that it not so problematic as to preclude good article status. Great work! J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)