Wikipedia:Featured article review/Free will/archive1

Free will

Article is still a featured article

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. Sandy 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has very few inline citations, especially considering its 59 kb length. The scientific section, though it contains some references needs more references to be up to even GA standards. Its prose is not that great and could definitely be greatly improved with copy-edits (possibly trimming as well). For example, in one section there are three quotations in a row (two from the same author) without sufficient prose that could be made to flow much better. What really kills it is the lack of references in most sections, however. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be salvagable in that case. There is a superabundance of research resources on the philosophical arguments about this topic on the Internet alone. It might not be so easy with the scientific sections. But I'll start on it tomorrow, if possible.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's frigthening, now that I look at it. Needs to be cut in half, at least. Completely reorginized. Prose is not the right word. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 21:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Francesco, do you think you can fix it in a day or two (just kidding — the FAR process is actually 2 weeks of review, followed by another two weeks of FARC, only if necessary :-) I've been watching the statement in there about Tourette syndrome for a long time. I have no idea what it's trying to say, so I hope you can address that. I can't figure out what a neurological condition has to do with Free will. Regards, Sandy 22:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through the comments and some of the history of edit-warring and such on this thing. Could you perhaps extend that period to three YEARS?? Oh my!! I will need to call in the reserves on this one. But none of them seems to be home right now. This should be intersting. </terror>--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 21:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, that's the way the consensus wants this thing apparently. Sickening!!~~ --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Latest assessment (somewhat subjective because personally involved though): significant improvements have been made. Not quite there yet, but we're making progress. Sections have been forked, the science section has been massively improved and there are many,many more citations. Still needs some rewrite on phi. section for content and quality of prose. More cites in several areas.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is greatly improved. It would be helpful if other reviewers would have a look, and comment on any work remaining to be done. Hopefully this one will avoid FARC. As the diff shows, the article has been rewritten this week. Sandy 11:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the process? How could it be stopped from going into FARC anyway?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is that it has been brought back to FA status, it doesn't go to FARC. Even if it does go to FARC, that just gives you a longer period to work on the article, so not to panic :-)) Sometimes, editors don't get around to looking at an article seriously until it moves to FARC. I've sometimes missed a few in the FAR stage, and found things that needed to be addressed only after it moved to FARC, but that doesn't mean the article will be delisted. As long as progress is ongoing, most reviewers are happy. Sandy 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks pretty good now — much better than when I put it under FAR. The references and the like are fine. I'm not very well-versed in philosophy, however, so I'll leave it to those who have been working on the article to determine if it's comprehensive enough to be considered an FA. Good work, guys! — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah it's comprehensive enough for an FA, indeed, the danger is that it will become too comprehensive and cease to be encyclopedic, but I think we've avoided that. Bmorton3 19:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's one important observation I wanted to add: this is absolutely the first example of concrete, contructive collaboration that I have seen on a philosophy article on Wikipedia since I've started on this thing back in January. I think we have genuinely managed to improved the article, while avoiding edit wars, personal quarrels and all the other nonsense that usually takes place. Some of you guys are fairly new and will tend to underestimate this accomplishment. Very impressive, folks.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Major rewrite, article is well-referenced, can we get more opinions as to avoiding FARC? Sandy 23:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people I know are in the philosophy "depatrtment". I am extremely histant to ask for their specific input for two reasons, Sandy: 1) Most of the ones I trust have already worked on the article. 2) The others might (will!!) almost certainly want to add their own quotes, favorite philosphers, and so on, to an already realtively lengthy article. This could even lead to instaibility and edit-wars.

Many of the non-philosophical people I have some familiarty with, on the other hand, are hesitiant to edit such an article becuase it is not their field and so on. But I will see what I can do even in this respect, just for you (;? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]