Talk:Diabetic ketoacidosis/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Did a review made a few corrections and I think this article passes. Congratualtions.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):Very well written b (MoS (Med)): No important MoS ommissions
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Very well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): The sources are reliable
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Yes b (focused): Remains focused
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: Yes
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.: Yes
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use withsuitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use withsuitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)