Creativity is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention 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.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
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 articles
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The "process theories" section is very filled out but has no context or organization for any of the theories provided. Most of them are sourced only to a few people advocating them and a few people criticizing them, and there's an enormous number of them. The section needs to get cut down a bit. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most of the article is basically pet theories, and needs to be rewritten with secondary sources to emphasize which of them are relevant, I think. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Looking at this diff from 2023, it looks like a decent portion of the article was edited with ChatGPT. This could be a non-problem, but given the originator of that diff, @Moorlock, was the largest article contributor, it should be noted. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think such tinkering is to be avoided. LLMs aren't in command of the details of sources. As such, there's no assurance at all that any paraphrasing is appropriate. OsFish (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see a few mistakes (e.g. changing (one work type is intra-sectoral (e.g. "general sponge") -> one work type is intra-sectoral, exemplified by terms like "general sponge"), which takes an accidental use of "e.g." instead of "i.e." and changes it into a claim that the term "general sponge" is an example of a kind of work), but nothing major that I can pick out. The author says the copy-editing was "assisted" rather than done by, so that might be a good sign. I can't find any of that diff in the article now so it's unclear if any of it survived, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
