Wikipedia:Peer review/How to Create a Mind/archive1

How to Create a Mind
This peer review discussion has been closed. I'm wondering how I can get this up to GA. It is rated B now after many rounds of changes. This is the first article I've written, any ideas welcome.

Thanks, Silas Ropac (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good for a first article; here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the NYT best seller seems to only be in the lead (and I would check for other things)
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is not really anything on the Analysis or Reception sections. Please see WP:LEAD
 * There are two schools of thought on references in the lead. One says to have refs only for direct quotes and extraordinary claims, since the refs for everything else will be in the body of the article when the material is repeated (most editors follow this). The other school is to cite the lead like everything else. This lead is somewhere in between...
 * I would use Kurzweil (and not "He") to start the third paragraph of the lead
 * The Background section is a bit sparse - it would help to let the reader know a bit more about who Kurzweil is and what he has done besides write similar books. See Provide context to the reader
 * In general, avoid the passive voice - one example ... it was announced that Kurzweil was hired by Google to work as Director of Engineering "on new projects involving machine learning and language processing".[9] could be active voice and tightened as something like ''Google announced it hired Kurzweil as Director of Engineering "on new projects involving machine learning and language processing".[9]
 * The Content section could be clearer about this coming from a book - use introductory phrases like "Kurzweil begins his book by ..." or "In the (first / second / third) (chapter / section), Kurzweil argues that..."
 * Spell out abbreviations on first use - what is "PRTM"? So "Pattern Recognition Theory of Mind (PRTM)" (could be i nthe text, not in a section header)
 * Identify critics / reviewers where possible, so who is Simson Garfinkel? (name needs to be spelled correctly too) Computer science professor and journalist Simson Garfinkel...
 * There is a free picture of Mr. Kurzweil in his article which could be used in the Background section and one of Mr. Gerfinkel that could be used in the Analysis section
 * Would "Reception" be a better title for both the last sections? They seem to be how fellow scientists reacted to his work (Analysis) and how the media reviewed his book (what is now called Reception), so could these be subsections of a big "Reception" section? (you would need a new name for the last section then) (Reception with two subs: Analysis and Reviews)
 * If there is information on how the book came to be written that would be useful to include
 * Ref 3 needs a publisher
 * I would include the last three External links as references (and incorporate whatever they say into the article).
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)


 * Great comments. I have added to ones I think I've addressed. Silas Ropac (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)