Talk:Illusory conjunctions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

We would like to improve this page by adding and elaborating the following: Studies, elaborate and cite the theories, brain processes, physiology of the eye in relation to the concept, basic info about illusions, why this is important, what it is related to, table of contents, images, adding credible references, external links/further readings, overview of content, bibliography, encoding and perception, history/discovery, influential people.

      mackey14321  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackey14321 (talkcontribs) 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 

Prof Comments[edit]

Please fix the references so you're not double citing, and only cite the sources you use. Also, hyperlink to Wikipedia definitions of terms like attention, visual fixation, Octave Illusion, etc. The opening paragraph should be shorter and more clear. The sub-headings should each be further developed. Finally, this needs a careful copy editing. ProfRox (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Classmate Comments[edit]

I like your beginning paragraph. It is a bit long but it is easily understandable for readers who don't know anything about this subject. I didn't understand what your picture was trying to convey to the reader. Maybe you could make that more clear? Is there anything else that you could add to the smaller sections? Kswen09 —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

Overall I thought that it was very informative and easy to follow. The only thing that wasn't as clear was the picture, but after enlarging it and seeing the text, it was easily understood. It might be helpful for the reader to either enlarge the picture or add a caption to explain it. Also, I personally would like to know some possible theories as to why our brains group the stimuli, so it might be helpful to briefly state some conjectures as to why that is. --Morsecode22 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is a very good start, but it definitely needs more information. The study you described in the opening paragraph should probably have its own section with more detail. You could also add more under the other headings you have or combine some of them. The references at the end should have their own number; right now it looks like a jumble. Basically more details and explanation. PsychLove13 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)PsychLove13