Jump to content

Talk:Methoxyflurane/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (話) 21:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems needing to be address

[edit]

1) In the "Biodegradation" section, there is a link to diuresis, which is a disambiguation page. I believe it should be directed to polyuria, but rather than make the change myself, I thought I would let you make the change in case you believe it should be otherwise.

I have changed "massive diuresis" to "vasopressin-resistant high-output renal failure (production of large volumes of poorly concentrated urine)". The toxic nephropathy caused by methoxyflurane occasionally observed after administration of methoxyflurane is a form of nephrogenic diabetes insipidus. DiverDave (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) There are several problems relating to the references. The following items have broken links:

  • Refs 9 and 56
  • The first link under "Further readings"
  • 2 of the "External links"
I have removed all of the broken links. DiverDave (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I think it would be helpful to have doi/pmid id links to many of the items listed under "Further readings". Some tools you might find useful: Template:Cite pmid, Template:Cite doi. They make citing references so much easier!

All sources in the ==Notes==, ==References== and ==Further reading== sections have been reformatted. DOI, PMID, and PMC links have been added in all cases where they are available. DiverDave (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will place this article on-hold until these reference issues can be sorted out. If you have any other questions, let me know. --Tea with toast (話) 22:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Thanks for all the improvements on the refs!
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: