Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Münchausen by Internet

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No action. No further light is likely to emerge from this reassessment. Most reviewers agree that the review was inadequate, yet also no reviewer has substantially disagreed with the points tersely made in the review, nor has anyone argued that the article currently meets the criteria.
Indeed it is easy to point to GA issues. In criterion 1, for example, the lead should serve as a summary of the article: here the lead discusses the link with the DSM, while the article does not; the lead does not mention Feldman, whereas the entire article and every source does so repeatedly; the lead barely touches upon notable cases or causes. There also may be some words to avoid issues (e.g., care is needed when using "note" or "identify"). I've read the online sources (and would be happy to receive others by email) and am not entirely convinced that criterion 2 gets a tick either. In criterion 3, the article does not set MBI in the general context of Munchausen syndrome and factitious disorders (which the lead mentions briefly). Regarding criterion 4 (neutrality), Feldman drew attention to this problem in 1997-2000, yet there are very few later sources, and they all rely on him or Howard Swains at wired.com. In such a situation I would expect an article to use explicit attribution more often than it does. I see no issues re criteria 5 and 6.
I apologize for posting review remarks here and would be happy to expand on them e.g. at Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA2 or just the article talk page. However, there has been a plethora of excellent offers to review, so I will not be offended if I'm ignored. The article needs a new reviewer, and possibly even a new champion.
This GAR has been remarkably calm, given the amount of historical, personal, and interpersonal baggage that has been brought here. I would therefore like to thank everyone for keeping the discussion on this page as civil as it has been and venting frustrations in more appropriate places such as user talk. I would however, encourage everyone to focus in future on the article and the criteria, not the editor or the process. In that way, we might actually improve the encyclopedia, which is the goal which bonds us all. Geometry guy 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review was transcluded at 16.08 and failed at 16.17.
  • Review objections include:
  • Writing too formal. It is a psychology/medical article.
  • Writing is unclear. No examples of what to clarify given.
  • Second paragraph has no citations. Unclear whether this means the 2nd paragraph of the lead, or the cited 2nd paragraph of the Characteristics section. Either way, this point is irrelevant.
  • Bulk of research is by one person. This is made very clear in the article. It is my understanding that GA is for articles that may not ever reach FA. The article is a summary of what reliable sources have printed about the phenomenon.
  • Article may need to be merged with Munchausen syndrome or Munchausen by proxy. This is certainly not a criteria for quick-fail. I disagree with this opinion nonetheless and have stated so in a reply at the GA review.
I welcome a second opinion. It is my first GA review, and I found the steps confusing. It may be a psych/med article (it is listed as a cultural topic), but Wikipedia isn't a science journal. My feeling is that an article should be understandable with some work by a high-school graduate, and easily by someone with a Master's degree (me). I had to read it a couple of times to understand it. The sock notice was placed there frivolously by someone who is stalking me: if you follow the link you'll notice I'm not part of the official sock-puppet case. Noloop (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, accusations of sockpuppetry before they've been proven. That rings a bell. I'm sure I've seen that methodology somewhere before. I wonder where...? --WebHamster 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noloop, you clearly haven't read the meesages I left you. And before you gone on about stalking, I had the article on my watchlist for weeks.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are five quick-fail criteria, which would warrant an immediate fail such as you have performed. The article exhibits none of these.
A reviewer must be crystal clear about what should be changed or what is unclear. It is typical to give the nominator at least seven days to complete these changes.
I may have asked for a good article reassessment on the singular complaint that the writing is too formal. Not only do I not see that, but the article reflects a tone similar to the sources, some of which are medical journals. I will absolutely not dumb down an article, particularly one that discusses aberrant human behavior. The reason for having GA and FA reviews is to improve writing. I should not be pulling up the reviewer. The reviewer should be pulling up the nominator.
I refer you to other GA and FA psychology or medicine-related articles. GA here and FA here. They are indeed advanced, but I do not understand how a high school student would be unable to grasp the Munchausen by Internet article. Again, you have not provided examples of where the writing is unclear or so laden with jargon that it is necessary to use a dictionary or click on blue links to comprehend the concepts discussed. I think it is rather basic and straightforward.
If this is your first GA review, then you got a good one, and by extension, me as the nominator. Lucky you. You have an excellent opportunity to learn from this article and the process of GA reviewing. I suggest writing a few GAs yourself before reviewing, or asking the advice of someone who is experienced in doing GA reviews. I suggest Geometry_guy (talk · contribs) or Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), both of whom are respected and have high standards. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reassessment: So basically Noloop trashed failed an article he wasn't qualified to comment on. As he himself states he didn't understand it. It's also apparent that he choose to pop his cherry and fail his first article on an article that had minimal other comments, he doesn't have the experience to be the only reviewer and spectacularly misunderstands even basic tenets of WP let alone complicated scientific articles. Noloops should never have failed this article, he barely understands the GAC procedure as it is. A Master's degree does not qualify anyone to do this. What is required is experience and understanding of the procedures and the subtleties of article reviewing. This takes monitoring and looking (without touching) for dozens of GAC reviews. This is quite obviously not something that has happened in Noloop's case. The current assessment of his should be nuked from space and replaced with an assessment from a reviewer who knows what they are doing. --WebHamster 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, such balanced overviews of the situation, expressed in clear unrhetorical language, calm measured comments on whether the article meets the GA criteria, and sensible advice on how to proceed; this will all surely help this GAR reach consensus. (I will omit the obvious </tag> because experienced editors should know better.) Geometry guy 23:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My concern is that it is unclear who uses this term "Münchausen by Internet" other Marc Feldman et al who apparently coined the term, and perhaps a few online sources who picked up on the novelty of the term and the current fad for Münchausen disorders, which are informal names for legitimate psychiatric disorders. The general psychological/psychiatric disorders are known as Factitious disorders. Naming conventions for medical conditions are quite clear that the medical diagnostic term be used. See Medicine-related articles - Naming conventions. Further, the article refers repeatedly to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association[1], the standard diagnostic manual for psychiatri disorders but which does not mention this disorder. This is misleading and seems to be legitimizing the use of this term by relating to standard medical sources. The linked article Münchausen syndrome by proxy probably should not exist either, and is a collection of trivial, OR, and a similar attempt to legitimize a slang or lay term. If someone wants to write an article on Feldman and his attempts to set forth standards etc. fine. But to write an article posing as a psychiatric disorder, while referring DSM is not ok, in my opinion. The rest of the article concentrates on Feldman's ideas, and perhaps becomes OR as it attempts to relate Feldman's ideas to the internet community/culture in general. Like other psychiatric disorders, eg Major depressive disorder, this article should use the sourcing standards of WP:MEDRS if it is to pretend to be a psychiatric/psychological diagnosis. If it is going to be a popular cultural article, it should not pretend to be a psychiatric diagnosis, and admit it is engaging in pop psychology. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only issue which GAR can adjudicate on is whether the article meets the GA criteria or not. I trust comments will be made with that in mind. If nominators or other editors consider that a review was bogus, they might instead consider renominating the article. Geometry guy 23:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you suggest, then G-guy? Renominating? Noloop has defended his review here. This is the first article I've brought to GAR. --Moni3 (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that it has been brought to GAR, I'd suggest waiting a few days to see if you can get some useful comments from uninvolved editors. I believe Mattisse's struck comments above contain useful comments, for example, even if you may not agree with them all. I think it is unlikely that large numbers of uninvolved reviewers are going to come along and say "list this now", but I have only read over the article once. Generally an article needs to have a complete review in order to be listed, and it is unusual for GAR to provide such a review. However, if the article is renominated, any comments made here will be available to inform the next review and you could get some really helpful ones. As nominator of this reassessment you can ask for it to be withdrawn if you think no further light is being shed and are ready to go the renomination route. It will still be linked from ArticleHistory as part of the GA audit trail. Geometry guy 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support reassessment - I think the reviewer was correct. I think his review was unfairly characterized. An unclear article is hard to understand, and the reviewer should not be ridiculed for saying so. The issues he brought up are real ones. I think those issues should be addressed independent of a GAR. I clarified his comments on the GA1 page. He and I are saying the same thing. I do not support an independent GAR. —mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No examples of unclear passages have been given by the initial reviewer or you. I have responded to your other issues on the GA1 page. --Moni3 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With apologies for any inconvenience, it will simply be too confusing in the long run to have a forked discussion. The GA1 page was closed by the reviewer (for better or worse). You are welcome to discuss improving the article on the article talk page (and I have moved some comments there), but it may be will be more straightforward if the GA status is discussed in one place. Thanks, Geometry guy 00:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion

[edit]
  • Prose - reasonably well written - it is precise, no weasel words, acceptable against the standards.
  • MoS - sufficiently compliant
  • References - Well referenced, all seem acceptable, all online refs check out, assume GF for print, no obvious OR
  • NPOV - OK
  • Broad - apparently so
  • focussed - yes
  • stable - OK
  • Images - none - OK
  • Overall - no problems that I can see - perhaps I missed something? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weasel words in first sentence. There is no evidence that "Münchausen by Internet" is a legitimate diagnosis used by anyone professional other than this Feldman who invented the term and is promoting it. The links to DSM misleadingly lead to Factitious disorders[2]. Please provide a link to the DSM diagnosis for "Münchausen by Internet". —mattisse (Talk) 02:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR Every source that can be accessed mentions "Münchausen by Internet" in the context of Feldman. The only one that does not, does not mention "Münchausen by Internet" either, but merely talks about internet hoaxes. —mattisse (Talk) 02:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I was clear, as is the article, that Munchausen by Internet is not in the DSM.
  • As what a psychiatrist who has been quoted or published by four peer-reviewed medical journals has written, Munchausen by Internet is a manifestation of Factitious disorder and Factitious disorder by proxy, communicated solely by internet communications. In order to understand what a psychiatrist has said, specifically linking Munchausen by Internet to Factitious disorder and Factitious disorder by proxy, it makes perfect sense to explain what these disorders are as described by the DSM, then elaborate that the way Munchausen by Internet is expressed is online.
  • Every source that can be accessed mentions "Münchausen by Internet" in the context of Feldman. The only one that does not, does not mention "Münchausen by Internet" either, but merely talks about internet hoaxes Factitious disorder by proxy was first noted in publication in 1977. It is still being considered for the DSM. Factitious disorder itself was noted hundreds of years ago but published as a possible psychiatric condition in 1951, and accepted as Factitious disorder in the early 1980s. Ideas take time to be accepted by the psychiatric and medical communities, as they should. Internet communication has been around and widely accessible since the early 1990s. The first mention of this manifestation is in 1997. And I must point out that a name repeated in research on the PsychiatryOnline DSM description of Factitious disorder is Feldman's. He is clearly an expert in his area. He helped write the entry.
  • Mattisse, you may be arguing for deletion, but this is the wrong venue. If you feel this strongly about it, put the article up for deletion. The GAR will be voided immediately for instability. But you'll get a wider response, specifically from WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Psychology. However, you will have to discredit 17 of the cited sources and display how they are not reliable, neutral, or that Feldman's ideas are fringe science. I have another list of sources on my talk page that have proven a little more difficult to find, but I'm working on them. You may also have to work for deletion of other syndromes such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder or exploding head syndrome. --Moni3 (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that psychology/psychiatry on Wikipedia is filled with many junk articles which deters many of us from working in the area. It is impossible to stop the exploding pop psych trash because so many feel compelled to write about it. However, such articles should not become GA under the pretense of conveying professional information. I am hoping GAR as some respect for the fields of psychiatry and psychology, which strive to be science-based. If you make the article a pop cultural article, I would have no problem. It is the clothing it in terms that make it sound legitimate and ratified by the American Psychiatric Association that I object to. Many people are like Marc Feldman and make up terms, garner publicity, and get their own Wikipedia article. It only takes a flair for publicity, which Feldman has in spades. —mattisse (Talk) 12:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reassessment I did not find any examples of text that was too formal or too unclear for an intelligent lay person (ie. me) to understand. Merge worthiness is not within a GA purview, and it would seem to create huge undue weight for any merge target. I somewhat agree about the "one researcher" comment, which is the only thing holding me back from saying promote. I think it needs to be clearer that this is a novel diagnosis - mentioning Feldman's invention of the term, and that most research originates from him in the lead would be sufficient. Also any criticism (if it exists) should be summarised in the lead, highlighting its current lack of acceptance/study.YobMod 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To GAR closer

[edit]

I am not surprised a bit that this article attracts controversy and needless argument.

I am confident that the article represents the best sources on a psychological issue, that it is accurately paraphrased, that it discusses the implications of a phenomenon that has psychiatric roots and internet-communicated effects.

The article is well-written, factually accurate, as broad as is possible given a small amount of information published on the topic, is as neutral as possible, has no original research, has until yesterday been stable and is relatively stable, and has no images. It meets the GA criteria.

The initial review was a quick-fail by an obviously inexperienced reviewer. The article had no clean-up tags, no uncited sections, no neutrality disputes, no edit wars, and is not an ongoing current event.

As always, I am happy to make improvements to the article. I will remain open to suggestions that seek to achieve that end. The reason I wrote the article is to understand pointless melodrama that takes away from article improvement and creation. It is for this reason that I am inviting the GAR closer to close this GAR at this earliest opportunity in his/her judgment. I am not interested in perpetuating the inspiration for writing the article by abusing GA review processes. Should anyone have suggestions on how to improve the article, please use the talk page.

In short, the article does not need a GA designation. It's already there and available for any reader to access at any time. If those who comment here decide to reassess it, fine. If not, fine. --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to GAR closer
  • Wow! That is certainly in the spirit of trying to fix up the problems in the article. Why not rewrite the article so that it is not misleadingly imply this is a diagnosis endorsed by APA. Why not be up front that this is one man's theory? Why not read up on WP:MEDRS and WP:RS and WP:OR. You are saying that it is your way or the highway? —mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no way, nor a highway. The article meets the GA criteria. You are arguing that the article should not exist. You are not suggesting improvements to get it to GA; you are listing tangential faults that do not address GA criteria. You have made it clear that you think it does not deserve a GA promotion. I have, I hope, made it clear that I am uninterested in the cost of disagreeing with you about it; I don't care that it gets failed. If you feel strongly that Wikipedia should not espouse one man's theory as is in this article, then take it to AfD. Use original research, use fringe, use a hoax as the reasons it should be deleted. Justify why a professor of psychiatry who is an apparent expert on Factitious disorders does not have the the academic authority to state that patterns of Factitious disorder have been observed in online communications. Prove that the Southern Medical Journal, Western Journal of Medicine, Psychosomatics, and the Journal of the American Medical Association have been duped into publishing fringe theories by a man looking to self-promote. Move the article to a more appropriate title per Med naming conventions as it adheres to a diagnosis. I have stated there is no diagnosis and this is irrelevant. I have found what has been published, and what I can access on it. Find the opposing criticism and put it in the article. No one is stopping you. GA is no longer an issue. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed, on the Talk page, two lead sentences that address my primary concern of readability. I also apologize for dragging my retinue of stalkers into this. Noloop (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it is wierd to see two editors i respect so much being so intansigent. Noloops's suggestions are at least an attempt to move forward, rather than arguing. There are clear (if imo, minor) conserns with the article - why not adress them? No article is immune to improvement! :-)YobMod 23:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might explain WebHamster's (and Malleus F.s) behavior, if you really want to know: [4]. It is unfortunate that his harassment is disrupting this review. Noloop (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What has that discussion got to do with me? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That this article was quick failed is clearly absurd. I fully support the comments made by WebHamster above concerning the competence of the reviewer, and I also find the comments about "one man's theory" to be at the very least bizarre. General relativity is also "one man's theory"; the point about theories is that they provide testable hypotheses, not that they're handed down from a committee. At the very least this nomination ought to be put back into the queue, but preferably it would simply be listed as a GA once a few of the pretty minor glitches are sorted out, which I would be very happy to help out with. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? I thought the purpose of a GAR would have been to highlight some issues and then given other editors a chance of addressing them over a time period, which didn't happen in this case (??) Casliber (talk · contribs)
I don't know. I understood that I should remove my comments as inappropriate so I did, and put them somewhere else. I am confused now as to what a GAR "should" be. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your struck comments above were entirely appropriate, as I noted immediately afterwards. Comments here should focus on whether the article meets the criteria, and your subsequent comments have not identified specific GA failings. For example, if you believe the article is promotional, then that is a neutral point of view concern, so you could present examples which show that multiple viewpoints are not represented fairly and without bias. If you believe the article is a synthesis of cherry picked sources, that is an OR concern, and you need to demonstrate that material in the article does not represent the consensus of available reliable sources. If you believe there is matierial in the article not supported by or misrepresents reliable secondary sources, give examples. Geometry guy 01:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a GAR is to explore the differences of opinion surrunding the review and to come to some conclusion as to how they can best be resolved. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it emphatically isn't! The purpose of GAR is to decide whether the article meets the criteria or not. It may be invoked when there is disagreement on that issue, but it isn't the purpose of GAR to bring arguing parties together: that is what dispute resolution is for. Geometry guy 01:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll leave you to it then, as I clearly don't know what I'm talking about. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I failed it because it fails the first criterion of a Good Article. The writing is unclear. When you ask a reviewer to assess the writing, you are asking for a reflection on the reading experience. That is all that can be given. My reading experience of this article was unpleasant. It was a chore to figure out what was being said.

Naturally, different people will have different reading experiences. Maybe someone out there finds the language of the article a delight. That person didn't take on the task of the review. I did. Noloop (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think you are right to point out observations on writing on any article if you feel it to be the case, I just figured (like WP:FAR) there is some sort of time frame for attempting to address concerns, is all. Balancing plain english with jargon and minimising ambiguity is a perennial problem across all sorts of articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is pointless to discuss repeatedly whether the GAN review was crap or not. The only useful information that GAR can provide is on article quality, on whether it meets the criteria, and on suggested improvements to meet these criteria. The GAR nominator has effectively requested to withdraw this GAR in response to the haphazard response so far, and I have been (and still am) sorely tempted to move this entire thread to the reassessment talk page and refactor the relevant (GA criteria based) comments here. A window of opportunity remains available to make amends with specific comments on GA issues and constructive suggestions to address them. Geometry guy 01:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my comments as your subsequent comments seemed to disapprove of mine. I can unstrike them if you like. I gave a wikilink to show that all mentions of Münchausen by Internet were articles on Feldman. What more can you ask? There are no independent mentions of "Münchausen by Internet" that are not reporting on Feldman and his view.[5] No one else takes a stand on the validity of his view or the legitimacy of his new diagnosis. They are all pop psych. DSM should not enter into it. But I am totally confused as to what should be posted in a GAR. So disregard and feel free to strike my comments. —mattisse (Talk) 02:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread a general comment as a specific response. If my comments "seem" something, I would welcome discussion on my talk page in order to reach mutual understanding. I think if you simply address your concerns to the article and the criteria, without thinking about (addressing them to or making reference to) involved editors, your points may shine through more clearly. In particular, if the term "Manchausen by Internet" is only used by Feldman, that suggests the first sentence of the article is misleading. Geometry guy 02:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've spent some time poking around. Disagree that it's a quick-fail for GA, but agree with the main thrust of Mattisse's concerns. Essentially (as G-guy suggests immediately above) the lead and the article need to be rewritten in such a way as to use a much larger hammer to hit the point that this is not a recognized diagnosis, that it was coined by one person, etc. however, the term has clearly caught on in popular culture. The article is a million miles from AFD. I also saw some niggly little instances of writing that I thought should be tightened, but.. not even close to quick-fail for GA. The writing in and of itself isn't even quickfail for FA, though in my mind it's a candidate for {{sofixit}}. Final word: Needs rewriting. I must confess that I probably would have erroneously PASSED GA if I had reviewed it, to be honest, only because I doubt that I would have been struck by the same subtle problem that Mattisse points out. But standing on her shoulders, I agree with her concerns. I spent more than a little time poking around.. it has been mentioned in some respectable literature, but only mentioned, and always with reference to Feldman. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it needs some work to meet the GA criteria; didn't have to stand on the shoulders of giants to see the bleedin' obvious. The quickfail was clearly absurd, but now we see the impotence of GAR, because what will happen now? Nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. You and/or Moni3 fix the damn thing. Re-nom it. If and only if I think it's OK, I'll Pass it. Done. We have such an informal process here. :-) This article should have been placed ON HOLD rather than quick-failed. We need an option to move from GAR straight back to ON HOLD, skipping relisting the nom! Ling.Nut (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, it doesn't even need renomming. If the concerns are dealt with now, the a consensus here can promote an article. If i am wrong about this (Geometry guy? I am sure i have seen failed GANs promoted here), then this should be quick-closed to allow another GAN, although it makes me confused as to the point of ever bringing failed GANs here (quick failed or otherwise).YobMod 10:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, failed articles can be promoted here, in fact that happened to one of mine. In this case though I think the better option would be to take Ling up on his generous offer. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Failed GANs have been promoted here, but this is rare (please read the advice at WP:GAR: criticizing reviewers is generally pointless here, as an article can't be listed just because the review was bad) as it requires that the GAR reviewers between them provided an in depth review against all the criteria. Returning to "on hold" has also happened, but that means that the original reviewer is maintained, which usually only happens when the original reviewer had some hesitation about the review and the GAR put it back on track. In most cases it is better to start a new review with a new reviewer. This needs to be listed at GAN, so that other reviewers know what is going on, and can contribute if they wish. It also needs to be started on a new review page for clarity. Geometry guy 20:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal to close. Rather than refactor this discussion and hash out here whether this article meets or can soon meet the criteria, I would propose that it be renominated at GAN, with a reviewer (such as Ling.Nut or Malleus) being available to put the article on review immediately, and perhaps even on hold within a day or two. For this to work, all that is needed, in my view, is (1) an expression of willingness from such a reviewer to do this, (2) an agreement from the reassessment nominator, Moni3, that this is acceptable to her and that the request for reassessment is therefore withdrawn, and (3) no valid objections are raised (e.g. from the original reviewer or independent editors) within 24 hours that this would compromise the integrity of the GA process. Geometry guy 20:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Close. The writing is, in terms of grammar etc., 98% good. The research is good as well. All it mainly needs is a bit of tweaking to hit the right tone emphasizing the restricted uses of this term (not accepted in medical community yet etc.). Drop me a line when it's fixed. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renominate at GAN. We could keep this article at GAR while editors attend to it. However, the simpler path forward is to send it back to GAN. 'Nuff said. Majoreditor (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renominate at GAN. This GAR has become too much of a drama to be useful. After a quick look through the article, my impression is: it has the ingredients of a GA but needs polishing; there is scope for a separate article on this topic, because of the special opportunities the Internet presents ofr this kind of attention-seeking disorder and because of the effects on online communities; it needs to be clear that this is not an officially recognised disorder but still gained notoriety; it would be useful to discuss whether the disorder is still a "hot topic" 9 years after it was first published; some of the prose needs polishing, especially the first para of the lead, which I suspect influenced the original GA reviewer's view of the rest of the article. You can add my name to the list of willing reviewers if it is re-nominated. --Philcha (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fix it, send it to GAN, give it to Philcha. If he wants it, I un-volunteer myself as a reviewer. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't good. It is a chore to figure out what is being said. That's the basic of test of clear writing. This problem is systemic to the article as a whole, and probably can't be fixed in a week, making it suitable for a quick fail. So, that's my review. Is the reason for all this renomination drama just that people have a different opinion? Noloop (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The article isn't good." I think we've heard just about enough of your adversarial nonsense Noloop – well I certainly have anyway. I have absolutely no doubt that this article could easily have been fixed up in a week were there the will to do it. Discussions have centred around structure and orientation, things that can be fairly easily changed IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad you haven't heard enough of your own "adversarial nonsense." A GA-nomination is a question: "Is this article good?" If you get your boxers in a bunch when someone answers, "No, it isn't," get a different hobby. Noloop (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Münchausen_by_Internet/1&oldid=1138537261"