Talk:Paracetamol poisoning/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. So far, I have looked through it and cannot find anything wrong. It all seems fine and very well written and referenced. If I find something, I will post comments below. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through the article and made a few edits for typos and such. The article seems very good to me, and there is nothing I can suggest, except that you expand it and fill it out if you intend to go for FAC.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Complies with MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced with science-based articles b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable and up-to-date. c (OR): No original research

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Gives overall setting b (focused): Focuses on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Yes

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratuations! A nice article. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)