Talk:Methoxyflurane/GA1

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

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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: