Talk:Carbon monoxide poisoning/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

This looks to be a strong candidate for WP:GAN, nevertheless I will carry out a full review before making my decision. Pyrotec (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point I'm just going to concentrate on a few minor points.

  • Signs and symptoms -
  • Perhaps we are splitting hairs here, but the statement "In the United States, the OSHA limits long-term workplace exposure levels to less than 50 ppm" is not true. The OSHA 8 hour time weighted average limit is 50 ppm, and that is clearly stated in ref 8; peak values can be higher, 100 and 200 ppm, depending on the application, are given in ref 8. In Europe, we have a 8-hour TWA limit of 30 ppm (it was 50 ppm). (Note: I will come back to this I want to check some data first).
  • I did a copyedit on the article. Pyrotec (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not very keen on the statement: "Carbon monoxide poisoning occurs after enough inhalation of carbon monoxide (CO)". Its rather vague, but at present I have not come up with a better solution. Pyrotec (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That a good point, that sentence is not the best, I also have not come up with a better solution, will think about it. Mr Bungle | talk 08:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, well-referenced article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    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:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)