Wikipedia:Peer review/Meth mouth/archive1

Meth mouth

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to make this article a GA, or maybe even an FA someday, and would appreciate feedback on changes that would be needed before that point. This is the first article that I've written mostly using WP:MEDRS, so feedback about how I did on that would be appreciated. Also, feedback about wording and clarity would be nice. Also, is there anything that seems to be missing/good way to expand this? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point - I only skimmed MEDRS, but I assume you probably should explain who the study authors' are in the article itself (e. g. "Goodchild and Donaldson", but with no explanation of who they are in the main text.) Otherwise it looks pretty good. Maybe if one of the specific PSAs that use meth mouth pics is noteable in some way you could note it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, I think I've taken care of both. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Churn and change:
- Lead:
  - The citation needs to come out. Whatever is in there should be present and cited in the body. Also, the cited source doesn't seem to be accessible by the usual institutional subscription. That does point to a low-impact journal.
    - Ok, I took that out for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - More importantly, the controversy over whether "meth mouth" is truly a separate condition or a more general condition with no specific meth-related symptoms needs to be there in the lead.
    - I added a couple sentences, hope this works. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The summary: "Legislators have responded by . . ." isn't borne out by the body text. Two legislators proposed a bill in 2007. Since the article doesn't mention anything else about it, I assume it didn't pass?
    - I don't think it did, but then a very similar bill was proposed in 2009, I can't find evidence of that passing either though. I removed the mention from the lead. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Cost of treating inmates taxing prison budget"—not supported in body text. The text tones it down to "some prisons" and the citations present this as largely a Midwest and South problem (NY Times says both, the Desert is focused on Utah).
    - Good point, I toned it down a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Characteristics:
  - "Meth" is acceptable wording. Merriam Webster's doesn't mark it informal or colloquial in either its general dictionary or its medical dictionary. General and (2nd definition): medical Government agencies use it in fairly formal writing: Office of National Drug Control Policy. Helps relieve the tedium of reading methamphetamine over and over.
    - Ok, sounds good, I've done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Temporomandibular joint of the jaw is redundant; just "joint of the jaw" and linking to TMJ should be good.
    - Good point, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The statement on xerostomia: perhaps the word should be introduced somehow before the quote. As it stands, the word is wikilinked and explained on its second occurrence for the technical reason the first occurrence is inside quotes.
    - Good point, I hadn't mentioned it in the characteristics section. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Parafunctional" habit is dentist jargon (perhaps not even general medical jargon) and should be briefly explained and not just wikilinked.
    - Ok, tried to add a brief explanation. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Treatment:
  - A tendency to lapse into jargon. What is "neutral fluoride"?
    - Good question, I'm not sure, so I've removed it for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oral irrigator-->dental water jet is more understandable and equally correct.
    - Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sialogogues, explained and wikilinked twice (once in the lead).
    - Changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some ce needed here: increase protection against-->protect against.
    - Good catch, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is "artificial saliva"? The wikilink is a red link.
    - Whatever it is, it isn't very effective so I removed it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Society and culture:
  - The cited sources (NY Times and Desseret) present meth-mouth among jail inmages as a mid-west/south problem; by omitting that part, the article implies the statement applies to the whole US. Which may well be true, but is synth.
    - I see your point, rephrased. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since late 2000s, members of the . . ., is misleading. The citations point to just one bill proposed in 2007, and, best I can make out from the article, dead by now.
    - Is "In the late 2000s, members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives sought increased funding" Ok, or should I change it more? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Anti-drug efforts, including those of the Montana meth project . . .": the citation mentions just the Montana meth project. It does say other similar projects were starting in Arizona and elsewhere, but doesn't say they were using the same tactics and were in full flow. The citation is from 2009. Aren't there RSes reporting on how the projects are going, or have they been canned?
    - I rephrased this sentence. I believe that the Meth Project is still going strong, it sure helps to have a billionaire paying the bills, but a quick search doesn't turn up anything recent in terms of their use of meth mouth. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- References:
  - The Goodchild source seems to be cited by nobody in 5 years, at least per PUBMED. So with the Heng article. The Walter article is a new study and seemingly a primary source. It is so new it is still under a publication embargo.
    - I've removed the Heng and Walter sources, Google scholar is showing a few cites for the Goodchild source (if I'm searching right). Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- General: The photo: how do we nonexperts know this is a reliable depiction of meth mouth? Shouldn't the photo itself be from a reliable source, instead of being a personal upload? There is one here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/body/ A fair use rationale would probably work. Here is one award from NIH for researching meth-mouth: http://www.ada.org/news/4432.aspx The funding is for 1.86 mil.
  - Ok, I noted the grant in the article. As far as the image goes, all we have is that the uploader said it was a suspected case of meth mouth. So unfortunately, I guess we have to part with it. I doubt we'll be able to use a fair use, since it's technically possible to get a confirmed picture of meth mouth. Image issues are such a pain here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks so much for taking a look at this, I really appreciate it. I'll try to get these points taken care of ASAP. I marked the ones I've done for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt.

Only a few

Lede:

The first sentence of the second paragraph implies that the reason it's hard to treat meth mouth is the danger of behavior from the patient, then why is the term "medically dangerous" used?

Yeah, the biggest danger is that the reaction between dental anesthetic and meth is potentially fatal. Less of a risk of a dentist getting punched by a tweaker, although one article mentioned that. I've rephrased a bit for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prison expense: Same thing, the treatment seems to involve the patient's time and inclination, rather than that of professionals, so why the cost? (I see from reading later that it's the cost of treating methamphetamine abuse in general. Clarification encouraged).

- Ok, I tried to clarify that sentence in the lease. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics

Suggest using common terms in parentheses when dental terms which aren't immediately clear (like buccal) are used.

- Ok, added one for now, will watch for more. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Parallels have been drawn between the effects of meth mouth and early childhood caries and Sjögren's syndrome," Are the parallels drawn among all three? Some small adjustment may be needed here.

- Ok, adjusted. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" hydrochloric acid, used the manufacturing process of meth, contributes to dental decay, no academic reviews have supported the idea." Perhaps you should clarify that it is the use of hydrochloric acid in the manufacturing procedure, rather than the substance in general, that you are referring to here.

- Good catch, rephrased. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Society

"members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives" Awkward. Can you combine into "Congress" or rephrase around?

- Good catch. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comment

The fact that there's little medical literature on this condition may cost you if you bring it to FAC.

Hmm, I haven't brought any topics like this to FAC. I know they're strict on medical articles there though. Well, I'll do my best. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. I won't call it a pleasant read! :)