Talk:Munchausen by Internet/GA2/archive
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to read thru thoroughly... may take a day or so :) btw, I'm an experienced reviewer and medicine article writer. Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
hmm... I really hate being the bearer of bad news; but I am unfortunately failing the article. Based on the sources cited, it is evident that Munchausen by internet is not indicative of a new psychological disorder or entity, but rather as Munchausen by proxy with the internet as another facillitator. This article could easily be merged into the main article, and remain within its context; but we can't interpret a recently observed manifestation of an established disorder as a new entity without it being blatantly regarded as such. Article fails GA: 
Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- True lulz. This is, perhaps, something I should bring to WT:MED. I am confident I have found every high quality source I could find about this phenomenon. It has been identified as a pattern and a manifestation of factitious disorder according to the sources and this is made quite clear in the prose. It does not state that it is a standalone disorder and in fact stats that it is not included in the DSM.
- Another quick fail without communication, another summary decision made without a discussion. This is why I asked for an experienced GA reviewer. How unfortunate. --Moni3 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- This (Rcej's fail reasons, with no questions or communication) makes as much sense as saying tourettism or intrusive thoughts articles shouldn't exist, because that content could be merged elsewhere. No logic. "btw, I'm an experienced reviewer and medicine article writer <-(the whole thing) too". It appears that Rcej hasn't read WP:NN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I feel badly that my review may have been taken personally; but I always review in good faith to the best of my ability... and while giving a result in that fashion may not guarantee that an article is passed as a good article, it in no regard reflects a lack in my experience, judgement, nor motive. Peace, and much success to your next review :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This (Rcej's fail reasons, with no questions or communication) makes as much sense as saying tourettism or intrusive thoughts articles shouldn't exist, because that content could be merged elsewhere. No logic. "btw, I'm an experienced reviewer and medicine article writer <-(the whole thing) too". It appears that Rcej hasn't read WP:NN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
This review has been archived to allow for a fresh review to take place.