Talk:Being You: A New Science of Consciousness/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 17:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

It is very welcome to have an article on a science book that has been made top of category by multiple news organisations. The article has numerous reliable sources and very properly combines a summary of the book's context, contents, and reception. I note that the article has recently been through a GA process and has been resubmitted.

• I don't see any more need to cite a non-fiction book summary than that of a fiction book (maybe there's a gap in the MOS here); in both cases, the book itself is the implicit source, and in both cases we rely on editors to summarize truthfully what the book says. Obviously in both cases, verification is perfectly possible, just by examining the book. So I'm quite happy with a not-visibly-cited "Contents" section, indeed I find it more transparent. If sources are desired, then obviously they should be like "Seth 2021, part N", and marked clearly as Primary in the references section, just to indicate which part/section/chapter is being discussed, but I don't find that specially necessary here.

No changes needed.

• Actually, the "Contents" section does contain numerous citations (from [6] to [22], in fact, quite a surprising number). Apart from a few to articles by Seth ([6], [7], [12], [14], and [17], which really ought to be marked as primary (i.e. a separate list of References, for clarity), these are not really in support of what is said, but identify sources of ideas that Seth discusses in the book; by the same token, they do not form part of the case for the article's notability, but pad out the list of sources. I'd suggest we move all of them into footnotes so their status is clear.

Dealt with when contents section was overhauled from narrative summary to an explanation of Seth's theory. Any remaining idea sources placed into footnotes.

• Similarly, it is actually a bit confusing having the non-book sources that were written by Seth (just listed) in the "Contents" section, as the one thing they are not is part of the book. It would be better to have those sources in the "Conception" section (an odd title, by the way; perhaps "Context" would be clearer); or if they must stay in "Contents", then they should be in footnotes.

Summary now only contains one primary source and explanatory footnotes.

• That leaves references [23] .. [33] to make the case for the article's notability. The requirement is for multiple sources (so far so good) which substantially discuss the article's subject (the book). Well, the sources include some very substantial reviews, such as Gaia Vince in The Guardian; but all we get to hear of Vince in the article is that she found the book "exhilarating". This is definitely inadequate here; Vince has written a detailed and informative review, and there is plenty that can be paraphrased and some that can perhaps be quoted to give more of an idea of what she has had to say about Seth's book. Maddie Bender in Scientific American is similarly dismissed in a brief phrase, "'imaginative and compelling' descriptions of experiments": again, this is not nearly enough. Felix Haas in World Literature Today (available to Wikipedians free on Project Muse) is treated the same way. In fact, the entire Reception section with its 11 sources is dismissed in 176 words, which includes the names of the reviewers and their journals. The section needs expansion; a very rough guide is that the secondary-sourced discussion of any article should be comparable in length to the primary-sourced synopsis, which in this case is 850 words: it wouldn't hurt if it was substantially longer.

Expanded per request, now around 1k words in length.

• Actually, of those refs, [23] .. [27] aren't exactly reviews ("Reception") but "Best book" awards; they would be much better placed in a separate section ("Awards" or similar).

Moved to their own section.

• Where as with the Bloomberg entry the book is one of many to be given an award, it would be more transparent for readers if the number of "best" books in the list were stated (i.e. "among 25 (or whatever) books given 'best book' status", or similar wording), so that it doesn't look as if this was the one-and-only "best book" for Bloomberg that year. Same goes for all the awards really.

Added a numerical count where possible, clarified the book "as one of the best" in other instances.

• I agree with the earlier GAN reviewer that the text (in particular the "Contents" section) reads awkwardly at various points, and needs a thorough copy-edit.

Contents section was overhauled. Unsure if article still needs copy editing.

• Equally, there are some unusual spellings, like "self-hood" for the standard form "selfhood". Again, that can be fixed by copy-editing (of the whole article, it's not that there's just one instance).

Believed to be addressed.

• What is the "Further reading" list for? This is not an article about a scientific theory. If these books are mentioned by Seth, that can be said in a footnote; if not, it's hard to see why they're here. Either way, they shouldn't be in "Further reading". (While we're on this topic, the use of countries rather than cities for publication place, too, is anomalous. The parameter is actually optional; we'd be better off without it than with this vague gesture in the direction of location. As for "United Kingdom: OUP USA", the less said the better, it's obvious nonsense; and you've spelt out and linked "Oxford University Press" for Purves.... More useful would be an ISBN for each book to enable readers to click through and find the books directly.)

Removed.

• I see that for some reason "Oxford spelling" has been mandated in the article. An odd choice even within Britain, but OK; but it does mean that British syntax should be used, so we should be saying "The naturalist philosopher Tom Clark" rather than the American "Naturalist philosopher...".

Chose Oxford spelling as Anil Seth is Editor-in-Chief of Neuroscience of Consciousness at Oxford University Press. However, upon rereading the book, Seth appears to use verbs with their s form (realised vs realized), so I've changed it.

• Several of the authors cited have Wikipedia articles and should be Wikilinked, e.g. Felix Haas. I'd suggest for navigability that all these authors also be authorlinked in their citations (like "|author-link=Felix Haas") so that readers who browse through the citations (yes, they exist) are supported.

Felix Haas (neuroscientist) does not have a Wikipedia page. However, I wikilinked to the authors I could find Wikipedia pages on. Even redlinked Tom Clark as he may be notable enough for his own page.

Sources

• The sources are sufficient for notability and are reliable, but as discussed above, many of them are tangential to this article. The reviews are the sources that matter, and as stated above, they need to be fleshed out to bring the article up to GA standard.

Addressed.

Images

• The book's cover is correctly licensed as fair use.

Understood.

• The Paris Observatory image is more or less decorative in this context. I don't specially mind but it isn't necessary in the article. If it's being kept, it should be formatted with "|upright".

Images removed.

• The Wittgenstein portrait is also upright and should be so formatted. Its status on Commons is actually unclear until 1 January 2025. It would be wise not to use it until then.

Images removed.

Summary

This article will take a fair bit of work, both to improve the text and to flesh out the Reception section. I look forward to seeing it progress, hopefully to GA, within the not too distant future. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review. I'll update you as I go! 123Writer ^talk 18:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap Is this what you meant by moving certain material to footnotes? 123Writer ^talk 19:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Mostly ... note that "Primary" should include only works by Seth, "Secondary" everybody else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

So interviews, podcasts, secondary? 123Writer ^talk 19:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, slippery. Suggest if we feel they're actually him that we make him one of the authors on those things, then Primary us easy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I sorted out all citation issues. I've also shuffled some info into Context so let me know if that's better. I plan on expanding the reviews section next. 123Writer ^talk 22:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I expanded Gaia's review. Is it long enough? Even though her review is long, most of it is a book summary. 123Writer ^talk 23:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"Long enough" isn't quite the question. What we're seeking to do is to produce a good article, one which makes good use of the key sources, and makes "the main points", at least, about the subject. Vince picks out what she thinks are key themes: "Consciousness, which Seth defines as “any kind of subjective experience whatsoever”, is central to our being and identity as animate sentient creatures."; "disagreements [between "perceptual expectations" and "conscious experience"] can help us to peek past what William Blake called the “doors of perception”." as with "the dress phenomenon", showing that "perceptual experiences of the world are internal constructions, shaped by the idiosyncrasies of our personal biology and history"; or "Seth has experimented with shifting his own reality – he describes using virtual reality headsets and taking LSD. I learn to my surprise that hallucinogens really do take you to a higher level of consciousness – your amount of consciousness can now be measured independently from wakefulness." Discussion of these opinions would, ahem, take the article to a higher level of insight into the book, compared to hearing from N different reviewers who said "wow", "gosh", "gee whiz" and "crumbs!". Of course, while you can quote snippets, longer quotations should be paraphrased. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

How about now? I'm mostly worried about copyright which is why I originally wrote the reviews so short. Do you want me to expand every review like this? 123Writer ^talk 12:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Much better. The fair usage rules, which are not particular to Wikipedia, permit anyone to make scholarly, critical, or educational use of copyrighted material for the purpose of discussion or analysis; this includes quoting sections of reasonable length, and if you look at scholarly articles and books you will see quite lengthy passages up to page length quoted and then analysed in detail. Wikipedia is more cautious, but if you have a point to make, you are fully entitled to make it and support it as you need with direct attributed quotations. You are, in addition, at complete liberty to paraphrase anything, at any length, in your own words, and you can combine paraphrase with short quotations of phrases which specifically give the "voice" of the author concerned. The one thing I would advise you to do is to repeat your references after each sentence that contains a direct quotation, i.e. like "bit of quoted text".[123] And, yes, you need to do the same for the other major reviews. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I expanded the reception section well. Any input? 123Writer ^talk 16:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what I should look at copyediting? I've looked at the article so much I've unfortunately gone blind to its prose issues. 123Writer ^talk 17:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Then it would be great to ask someone else to take a look at it, maybe someone you know who writes well, maybe the Guild of Copy-Editors? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Good shout. I remember @ULPS having copy edited a little bit, are you interested? 123Writer ^talk 17:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think I can copy-edit right now, I am a bit busy. (I know my being on wiki and responding in a few minutes goes against that statement haha, but I definitely won't have the time to copy-edit something 😔) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That's alright. I'll ask around. Thank you for the work you've done! 123Writer ^talk 21:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, do you think the article needs any images as you look at it post-expansion or do you think it's okay? 123Writer ^talk 18:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Me? I'm always in favour of images that help to clarify points made (rather than being decorative). In the case of science and philosophy, that tends to mean diagrams of models... if Seth has drawn anything usable, then you'd need to write a NFUR; otherwise the best bet is to simplify and rework an existing model as an SVG image.

I was planning on overhauling the contents section to instead focus purely on Seth's theory of consciousness. I experimented with the use of tables in my sandbox. What do you think? Should I only write it in prose, use the table, or a combination of both? A notable difference in this approach is the lack of footnotes leading to misc. information. 123Writer ^talk 00:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The table is immediately clearer and more systematic. A combination of text and tables should work well. I personally use text, tables, diagrams, and images whether I'm writing science articles or literary ones: I think it does a far better job than trying to stuff everything into unstructured text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

How's the article now? 123Writer ^talk 10:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Much more like it. The table format is a bit untidy (a lot of grey headers in the middle above a single row of text cells) but no matter. I think it's time to move on and fix the multiple small details above; if you could very briefly note after each item when/how you've fixed it, that'd be very helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Is that sufficient? Or do you want wikilinked diffs? 123Writer ^talk 12:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Just right, many thanks, and well done on your Good Article! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.