This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article has a lot of text that looks like original research -- it badly needs attribution to sources. Also the external links are bad -- two of them are nonfunctional, and neurophenomenology.com looks like a personal web page, which is a no-no. I feel that this is a valid topic for a Wikipedia article, but it really needs to be validated better. Looie496 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
The issues with original research/synthesis are still present, with a lot of assertions in wiki voice. I've tagged the last sentence for improper synthesis, but I believe there is a lot more content that represents the editor's interpretation of the field rather than a summary of a sourced description. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
