Wikipedia:Peer review/Dream/archive1

Dream
The article is looking much nicer and has been split into daughter articles. It needs, at the very least, copyediting and some prose reworking. Additional resources would also be helpful. --Mgreenbe 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to make this easier by breaking it down by section: So those are the issues that come to mind for me. An interesting article overall. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * The lead could be more cohesive. Don't be scared to make it longer if you need to.
 * Overview
 * The first paragraph in this section is just a really long sentence. I had to reread it to find out what "this association" was.  Break it up a bit.
 * Don't rely on clickthroughs to make important concepts clear. I saw cases all over, but I'm thinking specifically of the bit on hypnogogia.  That sentence tells the reader nothing without a clickthrough to Hypnogogia.
 * Cohesiveness is also a problem here. How ideas are grouped together into paragraphs seems totally arbitrary.  There should be clear connections between the sentences in a paragraph.
 * This section touches on remembering dreams repeatedly, adding just a bit of new information each time. There should be a single paragraph in this section that covers everything you want to say on the topic.  A central location for each important topic rather than a random journey touching each repeatedly.
 * Understanding dreams
 * Neurology of dreams
 * Too many single short sentence paragraphs.
 * Supernatural interpretations of dreams
 * This section needs an introductory paragraph, and could stand to be a little longer.
 * Psychodynamic interpretation of dreams
 * Why is the second paragraph sitting on its own? It seems to jump ahead into differences right before "The critical difference between Freudian and Jungian theories..."
 * This section only mentions Jungian theories the tiniest bit, and then only as a foil for Freud. It should describe Jungian interpretations more.
 * Lucid dreaming
 * "...can analyse the situation logically and react accordingly....particularly control of the direction of the dream...usually has direct control of the dream environment" - got it, lucid dreaming means control of the dream. How about putting all that related information in one place.
 * Dreaming in animals
 * On a random note, my dog has two distinctive types of dreams: chasing prey (characterized by twitching legs and muffled barks) and nightmares of some sort (characterized by whining). I've often wondered what kind of creatures he's encountered in his sheltered life that can scare him so much in his nightmares.
 * Bibliography
 * I'd like this better as a "Further reading"
 * External links
 * You may have enough links to group them thematically into sections


 * Thank you so much for your helpful comments! Right now I feel the biggest problem is the lack of Jung resources; I've swept this under the dream interpretation carpet, but the issue needs to be resolved.  Additional carpet sweeping includes moving hypnogogia to "see also", as I couldn't find an appropriate place to mention it.  Do you feel the prose edits have helped? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgreenbe (talk &bull; contribs) 02:26, 4 February 2006  (UTC)


 * I am a Jungian scholar, having read nearly all 22 volumes in the Princeton-Bollingen series and completed a dissertation that explored a Jungian theory of dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 March 2006


 * The article should make better use of references by employing inline citations. Andrew Levine 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I like that the overview section material has been incorporated into the lead and body, and I like how the neurology section is organized now. The supernatural section transitions much better now, too, and the lucid dreaming reads better.  If you want FA status for this, you'll have to have inline citations, as Andrew pointed out, but I think the prose has definitely improved.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, for a FA it'd be nice to have another picture, as I'm sure there are good ones out there. Perhaps something illustrating the spiritual or psychodynamic sections.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A good point, thanks. As for citations, that's my next step &mdash; I'll reformat the page and scour PubMed et al. when I have a decent chunk of free time. --Mgreenbe 01:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)