Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
: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. [[User:Noloop|Noloop]] ([[User talk:Noloop|talk]]) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
: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. [[User:Noloop|Noloop]] ([[User talk:Noloop|talk]]) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
::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.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]][[User:Abce2/guestbook|<font face="Papyrus" color="#FFAA11">''Wribbit!(Sign here)''</font>]]</small> 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:40, 12 August 2009
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
- 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.
- Reviewer has a banner on his userpage signifying he may be a permanently banned sockpuppet. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)