Talk:Ideasthesia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Should complete this one within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• Per WP:LEAD, I'm not sure if that table should really be there. If it's essential to the article could you move it into the body?

• "The following table shows the difference" - this should be cut and moved elsewhere in the article as tables cannot be in the lead section. Also, I notice that it doesn't use a real table format?

• "and is introduced by Danko Nikolić" - who is Danko Nikolic? A scientist/researcher? This sentence should introduce him
• "in fact are induced by the semantic representations i.e., the meaning, of the stimulus[2][3][4][5][6]" - just curious, that's a lot of citations, is that truly controversial information?
• The Ideasthesia in normal perception section is vastly unreferenced. Can you add more citations to back up some claims?
• The last section "Ideasthesia and the hard problem of consciousness" only has one reference, can anything else be added?

References

• No dead links
• However as mentioned above, there are a lack of citations in some places in this article that need to be addressed

On hold

This was interesting to read. While I'm not so well versed on the topic I would say for what it's worth this does meet the "broad in coverage" criteria as it tells the reader everything they need to know. The major concern here is the lead section, per WP:LEAD tables don't belong there. Also some lack of citations that need to be added in order to back up various claims. However I am happy with the prose, so it's just a few technical things. I'll put this on hold for at least seven days and will review the progress. Thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments addressed

Thank you very much for the review. I addressed your comments as follows:

• The table is removed and the content is moved to the text.
• Danko Nikolic is introduced as a "neuroscientist".
• Comment: The nature of synesthesia is still somewhat a controversial issue. Most notably, Ramachandran (an influential scientist) and his students continue to hold the traditional view.
• Multiple references are added in "Ideasthesia in normal perception".
• Also, two more references are added in "Ideasthesia and the hard problem of consciousness".

I hope I did not forget anything. (Danko (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for your improvements! Happy to say that this article meets the criteria now. With the lead improved the prose issues out of the way this is in better shape. Promoting ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)