Talk:Contact lens/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, EdC (talk · contribs), BillC (talk · contribs), Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), AED (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. This article needs to be edited to meet the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am about to outline a partial list of issues that need to be addressed. After I post this listing, I will give concerned and interested editors a week before I reevaluate the article's quality rating. I will be following along with the progress of the article and may make additional comments as it is appropriate.

According to the alt text checker, the article needs WP:ALT text.
According to the external link checker, the article has a deadlink and two suspicious links.
According to the dablink checker, the article has two dab page links in need of attention.
The article has numerous paragraphs without any citations. The article will require at least one citation per paragraph
The article has numerous short paragraphs, and it would probably be improved if some paragraphs were merged or expanded.
The article has a citation needed tag in need of attention.
The article has several bulletpointed lists that should be put in prose form
The article could benefit from an infobox
See WP:CAPTION#Wording as it relates to the use of periods.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be monitoring the progress of this page and will comment and add further concerns as is warranted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that one-day disposables are thinner and weaker?

The article claims that disposable daily lenses are thinner and weaker, without references. I believe that they are exactly the same stuff as less frequent change interval lenses. The difference is marketing. They are a different price point. People are willing to believe that the lenses branded as longer lasting really last longer, and thus pay more money for fewer of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.190.10.85 (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]