Talk:Consciousness/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Monty845 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning review. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it on. Looie496 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The article as a whole is very well written, and MOS compliant. The only subsection that really needs some work is Phenomenology, the start of the section is very awkward, it just lurches into the discussion of the term, without any real introduction. Done

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
A couple required citations are missing: The Leviathan quote requires a citation, and the "if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism — something it is like for the organism" quote doesn't have a clear citation, is it to the previous cite? Done

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Its a very long article, but does not go into necessary detail.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Appears to be a fair representation
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
There are some disputes in the history, but no edit warring, the article is generally stable.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
File:Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame 4.JPG has a licensing problem. While the photographer appears to have released the photograph under an acceptable license, there is no licensing information on the teddy bear itself. The teddy bear may be subject to copyright, (no freedom of panorama) and if so, the bear needs its own tagging. I could see a fair use rationale for using the image anyway, but NFCC criteria #1 would be problematic.
Problematic image removed Done

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold pending a resolution of a few issues, but it shouldn't take much
Looking over the revised version. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listing as a good article, all issues pertaining to the GA criteria have been satisfactorily resolved. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Improvements[edit]

The following suggestions are not directly tied to meeting GA status unless also mentioned above

The lead is pretty long, I'm not sure if any of it can really be trimmed, but it should be looked at.

My impression is that articles of this length usually have a comparably long lead. I worked pretty hard to be terse there, but if you can identify anything that doesn't seem to belong, I'll certainly look at it. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and early history[edit]

*"His essay had much influence on..." seems a bit awkward

Changed to "His essay influenced the 18th century view of consciousness..." Does that work? Looie496 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that reads better. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Appearance in Dictionary (1755) could use a citation (even though it is clear where the claim could be verified)

Ref added. Looie496 (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The quote from leviathan could use a citation (GA critera as a direct quote, and for consistency)

I missed that -- ref now added. Looie496 (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The Locke caption is pretty basic

Expanded to "John Locke, British philosopher active in the 17th century". Enough? Looie496 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that works. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In philosophy[edit]

*"For surveys, perhaps the most common approach..." seems a bit informal, consider rephrasing.

I deleted the word "perhaps", which was not really needed anyhow. Looie496 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"Cartesian dualist" could use either an explanation/wiki link at the first use, though it is wiki linked later.

Now wikilinked. Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The Why do people believe that other people are conscious? subsection seems like it could use some additional citation.

I have added a couple of refs -- hopefully they cover the points that concerned you; if not let me know. Looie496 (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The "if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism — something it is like for the organism" quote needs a citation (GA criteria)

That's a quote from the article cited directly before that sentence -- I have now moved the citation later to indicate more clearly that it applies. Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"Searle's essay has been second only to Turing's in the volume of debate it has generated," It isn't really clear the scope of this claim, is it just limited to debates about machine consciousness?

I have added "In the literature concerning artificial consciousness..." at the beginning of the sentence. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific approaches[edit]

*The second paragraph of the Measurement subsection could use additional citations, it also reads essay like, and should have its tone improved.

I've added refs for the first sentences, and reworded the questions to state the issues in non-question form. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*In the third paragraph of the States of consciousness subsection, cannabis is included in a sentence that describes whole classes of drugs, should it be listed there?

Pharmacologically cannabis is in a class of its own. There is no other commonly used drug that acts via the same brain mechanism. There are some synthetic cannabinoids, so I could revise it to say "cannabinoids" rather than "cannabis", but it doesn't seem to me that that would be a service to the ordinary reader. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just wanted to make sure it was appropriate, from your response, it sounds like it is. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The start of the Phenomenology subsection needs a rewrite. (I think its unclear enough to be a GA issue)

I have rewritten the first paragraph. This is pretty tough because the literature is a mess, so it's hard to be accurate without being obscure. If it still doesn't work let me know, and I'll keep trying. Looie496 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual approaches[edit]

The section seems underdeveloped, could it be incorporated into the philosophy section

I agree that it's underdeveloped. I don't think it should go into the philosophy section, because books about the philosophy of consciousness don't cover that aspect, at least none that I'm aware of. One option would be to simply remove the section, but that doesn't seem right to me, because a scan through books that use the word "consciousness" in their titles finds that a large proportion of them are about spiritual themes. I think there is room to expand the section with material about views in Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and perhaps esoteric religion, but I'll have to educate myself if I am going to be the one to write about that. The article once had paragraphs about Hindu and Buddhist concepts, but they were too poorly written to stay in a GA-level article, and I couldn't get the authors to respond to attempts to clarify them. Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in interim measure, maybe just move the section so that it is between the philosophy and science sections, as I think it is at least related to philosophy, even if it should remain a separate section. While expansion of the section would be desirable, I don't think it rises to the level of a major element being missing, so it isn't critical from the GA standpoint, but you will want more here if you want to move the article towards FA. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I have moved the section as you suggest. Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment[edit]

There are several places where the article gets a bit informal and essay like. It isn't to the point that it violates WP:OR but it could still be improved. A conversational tone should be avoided. Specifically, I don't think it is a proper tone to include questions to the reader unless they are quotations of questions asked by a philosopher or philosophy being discussed, and should then be cited.

If you are referring to the section titles in the Philosophy section, they are not really intended as questions to the reader, but rather as questions that are vigorously discussed in the literature. I'll think about whether there is a way to get that across more clearly -- or if you have a suggestion I am certainly open to it. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question specific example is in the Scientific approaches/Measurements sub section, "...but is it possible for subjects to be wrong about their own experiences? If so, how could anybody tell?" But there are other places where the tone gets pretty conversational. Again, I don't think it is strictly an issue at the GA level, but moving forward, I think you should keep an eye on the tone, and try to make it more encyclopedic and less conversational. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above I have dealt with the specific example mentioned. I'll keep your point in mind. My instinct is always to try to explain a concept in the simplest possible way, but I don't want the text to come across as condescending, and that's often a fine line. Looie496 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The bear image, as mentioned above, it has a copyright issue. It can either be removed, replaced, or a discussion could occur at a knowledgeable venue as to whether it is in fact improperly tagged, WP:MCQ or WP:PUF would be good venues. (GA Criteria)

I have removed the image. Experience has taught me that I'm incapable of understanding Wikipedia's image policies, so I don't think a discussion would be productive. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I went through the article I noticed the above issues, they are just my personal opinions, and unless otherwise noted, are not changes required as part of the GA review. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other issue, 3 citation templates have a invalid parameters, any uses of {{cite web}} that have a authors= parameter should have it changed to author=. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It's annoying that the cite web templates are different from the other cite templates in this respect. Thanks for pointing out the problem, which I probably would never otherwise have noticed. Looie496 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing as I approve it, AWB says the dates used (I presume in the citations) are not the same format: 5 - ISO 8601, 1 - International, 3 - American. Totally not a GA issue, but someone may raise it if you move towards FA, so I wanted to note it. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to figure out what that means :-). Thanks for the very conscientious review, and for making the process flow so smoothly. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its the order and format of date "2011-10-31" (ISO) vs "31 October 2011" (International) vs "October 31 2011" (American). Monty ₈₄₅ 19:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]