The rationale behind the request is: "important subject for people interested in consciousness".
Lucid dream was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Remove all instances of pseudo psychology. All appeals to psychological authority should be qualified by a reference to the specific field or person for which the claim originated. It is not appropriate to read a book on psychology, or a field of psychology and then extend the ideas to Lucid Dreaming. Unless the field or person says something specifically about Lucid Dreaming it is not a reference!
Priority 3
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program: Cornell University/Online Communities (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
You said on my talk page that the reason why the image (below) deserved removal was that "It contains multiple visual artifacts, such as on the tree visible outside, the clouds surrounding the dream view, and the eyelid of the flying person"
The tree in the background is not a problem. The clouds in the dream view illustrate that the dream-self is flying. The eyelid is the only problem. Once corrected, the image is a relevant and suitable lead image. More importantly, it accurately represents the article. Unless you have a better image for lead image, then (once the eyelid is corrected) this image should be it. Cerebrality (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is "the eyelid" issue? That her eyes are closed in the dream?
The bubbles also need correcting; the "dream" thought bubble is emerging from her body, and it's unclear whether "I must be dreaming!" is something she is saying out loud in the dream, or a thought that her sleeping brain is having.
But I'm not sure that a cheerful cartoon, whether drawn by an AI or a human, is really an appropriate illustration for a serious psychology article. Belbury (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this shouldn't be in the article. Quality issues aside, the presence of the cartoon is jarring and doesn't usefully illustrate the article. Adding AI-generated images anywhere on Wikipedia is quite controversial as well and this is a particularly poor test case. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in agreement. I don't think it would fit the encyclopedia regardless of whether or not it was generated using AI.
In response to Cerebrality's points: I was referring to the lilac cloud border surrounding the "dream-view", upon which you can see unusual smudged lines and blurriness without having to look very closely. The tree in the background is noticeably blurry and garbled, and it is very difficult to make out distinct lines even when zoomed in. The issue I recall observing with the dream character's left eyelid was that it looked unusually blurry, but looking back it wasn't quite as bad as I thought it was. SupremeLordBagel (talk to me) 22:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for several reasons. 1) It's clip art - it doesn't add to the understanding of the article at all, it's just visual candy. 2) Like all AI images, it's low quality. Take a look at the ball of spaghetti hand or the foot merged into a cloud. 3) AI images are created by models trained by scraping huge amounts of copyrighted content without permission, and then regurgitating it. I don't think it's aligned with our mission as a free encyclopedia to use outputs of such models. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your second point is good, but the other two are not.
In response to point 1, it definitely adds to the article understanding as it clearly depicts a lucid dream moment of realization.
