Wikipedia:Featured article review/Philosophy of mind/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC).

Philosophy of mind

 * Notified: Lacatosias, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject Psychology

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it is the oldest one in the template. I will quote talk page discussion:

"The original FA for this article with its gold star was granted in 2006 over 10 years ago, and the lead editor is long retired from Wikipedia over 5 years ago. The original 2006 FA article was well-written, coherent, and useful for persons interested in a short and clear introduction to this subject matter. The current article has had numerous scattered and non-specific edits added by numerous editors over the years since then which do not appear very well-presented or even marginally organized; this has led to the current highly complex and overly long format for the article's outline. At some point since 2006, it appears that an attempt was made by some editors to synthesize an extensive east-meets-west version of this article with possible asides made concerning the usefulness of yoga. Would the article benefit from being returned to a non-peer reviewed status for re-development, or, perhaps the original FA version of the article from 2006 could be restored which did not make recommendations for the use of yoga. CodexJustin (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering that notice was given almost two years ago, and this article is still not at standard, it needs to go to FAR. It is 50% larger than the FA version (meaning a good amount of the text has not been vetted), has numerous lists and quote farms, and large swatches of uncited text, an enormous navbox chunked in to the lead, incorrect use of bolding, breach of naming with repeat of the title in section headings, poor use of summary style, cleanup needed at See also Further reading and External links, inconsistent citation formatting, in addition to the issues raised above. At FAR, the possibility of reverting to the featured version can be reviewed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)"

I know nothing about the subject, so will be of limited use in improving the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition to the many unsourced blocks of text and at least two citations to books with page references, there are parts that look like OR at first blush. There is even too much to fix to make it pass a B-checklist. My two cents, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My knowledge on this topic is fairly limited, so I am not sure how much I can assist with this. Several of the later paragraphs read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. We should either restore the article to its 2006 state (which is unlikely) or demote it.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC, one major edit (as indicated above), but much more needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include organization, style, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist per above, in two years no one has shown interest in fixing the issues identified. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist, no engagement, no improvement. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist I spot several issues with the article, many of which have already been mentioned above. But still, the article has several uncited blocks of text, random sentences scattered around ("See also the problem of other minds."), sometimes wanders into the realm of WP:ESSAY ("This semantic problem, of course, led to the famous..." or "Several groups are inspired by these advances."), bad writing ("In the field of near-death research, the following phenomenon, among others, occurs: For example, during some brain operations the brain is artificially and measurably deactivated.") and so on. Given the complexity of the subject and the fact that no one is willing to work on the article at this time (or for the past two years), it should be delisted since it does not meet the FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.