Talk:Methoxyflurane/GA1

GA Review

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

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

Problems needing to be address

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)

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)

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)

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)

Review

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: