Failed GA nomination I m afraid this article doesn t meet the Good Article Qualifications just yet Here is a brief list of some issues associated with this article that I feel are holding it back Once these issues have been tackled feel free to renominate the article There are some serious jargon issues While much of the philosopher jargon is wikilinked the reliance on jargon means that there should be more in text explanations of terms and wherever possible jargon should be replaced with equivalent terms or sentences I found it very difficult to get through the article particularly in the Non Reductive Physicalism section where even the infographic seemed confusing and under explained The ideal reader of an encyclopedia should be primarily the curious average man He should only secondarily be the specialist and or the high school student Charles van Doren This article is currently aimed a bit up toward specialist When one is an expert in something it makes explanations that are clear to the non expert a challenging task Don t think of it as dumbing down the article think of it as casting a line out to those who wish to know more The lead section does not give a clear view of what physicalism actually is In fact after reading it I still find myself at a bit of a loss of how I would describe it to someone The lead section should be able to stand on its own as a concise description of what physicalism is and why anyone cares There are some comprehensiveness issues While comprehensiveness isn t as critical with GA as it is with FA there are still some things that I think could be improved The lead section itself admits that the rest of the article is about mental physicalism What are the other kinds Where would we learn about those The article should link to the other physicalisms or better yet summarize the various types and link to the main articles associated with them Likewise I feel like the lack of a history section is a bit jarring I m left with some uncertainty about whether this is a modern viewpoint or an ancient viewpoint Was this something that Greek philosophers where discussing Beat poets Modern college professors A brief history section could provide some valuable context for understanding The tone is odd in some areas as well Note the section on Token Physicalism It requires that for social moral and psychological particulars there must be a physical particular identical with them Consider the Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court exists but according to token physicalism there is a physical object that is identical to the Supreme Court However this physical particular does not necessarily exist in any conventional use of the word physical This sounds more like something a professor would say to a class than something I d read in an encyclopedia Would it be possible to quote an expert giving an example for instance A bit under referenced This isn t critical but there should be more references inline using the WP CITET templates if possible When explaining a metaphysical concept it can be easy to transition from explaining the most common viewpoint to original research via creative interpretation References will make it clear that the article represents the current accepted view and not just the view of the editors Minor formatting and copyediting issues There are some spelling errors and grammarical errors sifted around I ll try to clean a few of those up myself since they aren t difficult but a thorough copyedit would be helpful Finally I d like to note that I do think this article is a good one I know its a challenging subject to translate and it seems like the details of the concept are well laid out including arguments for and against The article has come a long way and has a lot of potential The biggest challenge is the tone and jargon technical language issues the rest are small and should be quickly resolvable Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you want any more clarification on my reasons