This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Neurology / Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Cognitive science ( inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles Neuroscience This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The section on “Lesion and Activation Interpretations” reads like a paragraph from an essay. But is it neutral? Bwrs ( talk) 06:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply

A conclusion seems very out of place in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps it would be best to delete said conclusion. Not only is it vague, e.g. it states that To some[who?], what is most fascinating about the way our understanding has shifted is that neuro-anatomical evidence now offers support for Freud’s theory of dream interpretation, but moreover, an article which must be as objective as possible does not require a conclusion, which is best used when following a thesis that the author defends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savarez~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

This article appears to have lacked recent attention. Perhaps editors focusing on its topic have applied their energies to the "Dream" article instead. I anticipate making structural edits to the "Dream" article. I can spell out my intentions in more detail if anyone cares to know. My question here: Should "Cognitive neuroscience of dreams" persist as a separate article? Current "Dream" article contains both a "Neurobiology" section and a separate "Neurology" sub-section. Canhelp ( talk) 15:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC) reply