Talk:Mind–body dualism/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. The article has a lot of good qualities, but there are some issues, in particular one major one, that I believe prevent it from meeting the criteria.

• The main issue is with the "Historical overview" section, that doesn't go much further than Descartes. Unless I'm missing something, there must surely have been done important work within the field since the seventeenth century. The rest of the article incorporates much modern scholarship, but there's a gap in between here.
• Though a current GA review would probably demand more inline references, the amount of references is generally satisfactory. There are, however, some parts that need citations. Also, partly the lack of citations and partly the language used gives a sense of an essay rather than a NPOV article.
  • "Some philosophers and thinkers have taken this to be a form of materialism and there may be something to their arguments.": This needs to be immediately followed by a reference. Furthermore, vague terms like "Some philosophers..." should be avoided, and the sentence gives the impression of original research.
  • "However, what is important from the perspective of philosophy of mind": Same thing.
  • "This is an idea which continues to feature prominently in many non-European philosophies.": Which ones? Says who?
  • "Predicate dualists believe that...": This needs to be followed directly by a citation.
  • "A very important argument against physicalism": Terms such as "very important" should be avoided.
  • "Thomas Nagel...": Where does he say this?
  • "Imagine the case of a person...": Use of the second person.
  • "Causal interaction": The entire second paragraph of this section reads like an essay, and has no citations.
  • "Phineas Gage...": Where is this from?
  • "Argument from biological development": At the end of this section there is, quite rightly, a "citation needed" tag.
  • "Problems of dualism": Here there's a reference that's not inline.
  • "Sandra Blakeslee points out in the New York Times...": No reference, just a date (and wikilinked at that).
• "Non-reductive physicalism": This section needs expansion and sourcing.
• "References": Many of these are improperly formed, in particular there's a lot of naked URLs.

These are just some examples, if anyone wants to go to work on this I can do a more thorough review. I will wait for seven days, if anyone has started a thorough revision of the article by then, I will extend the waiting period, so the article can remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it will be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Lampman (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)