|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Stub-class)|
Where is the illusion?
The illustration says "The two centres are identical", but to me this is no surprise since they look identical. The illusion is allegedly "dramatic" but I don't see it. Does anyone else? Is this graphic a poor example? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
FYI, it is probably reasonable to call the illusion "dramatic" for neuro-typicals, but not some others. Some of us, myself included, are partly or wholly blind to some visual illusions. You may be among us. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Responding to request for copy editing
I'm responding to the request for copy editing. I am focussing on sense to the non-expert reader, simplification of grammar and jargon, and sense to low vision readers who won't get the illustrations without more detailed captions. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Have given this a good working over and need to quit for the moment. Have posted on the GOCE request list asking for another set of GOCE eyes to go over it. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
|WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|
Picked this up on request. Feedback encouurage! Commments:
- Include the confidence interval in the finding of statistical significance.
- "Indeed, these observations suggest a wholly empirical explanation of the Chubb illusion." What other kind of explanation is there? This needs to be reworded. On reflection, I suggest "non-psychological" or "objective" rather than "empirical", if I'm not misunderstanding the intent.
- I removed consecutive citations of the same source in a single paragraph. Repetition adds nothing.
- I went beyond copyediting in removing the claim that the illusion is of interest only to psychologists, thinking that it was of interest to others as well. If that's wrong, let me know and I'll fix it.