Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual modularity
I am the author of the article. I can confirm that the contents of the article is exclusively based on a summary, review and synthesis of earlier publications and thus is not original research. I have reread the article and removed or "hedged" anything that goes beyond the evidence. The reader will note that every single statement of fact is supported with references from peer-reviewed scientific journals. As for the limited point of view, the evidence marshalled is from many different sources and using many different techniques. Furthermore, where relevant caveats are clear. For instance, the sentence, "...a stream of diverse anatomical areas subserves motion perception" is followed by "However, the extent to which this is ‘pure’ is in question: with Akinetopsia come severe difficulties in obtaining structure from motion (Rizzo, Nawrot, Zihl, 1995)". Thus the article does not argue for visual modularity but reports the evidence from the scientific literature, noting where the science is still unsure ("in question"). As for looking like a research article, I agree it is too much like a research article and I would welcome efforts to make it more encyclopedic.--Neuropsychology 10:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a research article for an academic publication rather than encyclopedic entry Alex Bakharev 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep pending a better deletion reason - I'm not sure what policy this is supposed to be against. The article is clearly an academic article and so does read like most other articles, however it's replete with references, does not seem to be original research. May be a limited point of view but it's beyond my technical knowledge to determine. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Good article, but it may have original research.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Claidheamohmor (talk • contribs) 13:10, 30 January 2007.
- Delete essay. Yes it is Original research. Mukadderat 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Is the subject original research or just the current text ?If just the current form then edit with an axe !.It does appear to be a real term used in cognative/vision psychology, with numerous articles. I don't know enough to be able to make the article balanced but it does look largely like it just needs expert attention. It's noted in [1],[2],PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1990, Volume One: Contributed Papers (1990), pp. 365-378, Visual Cognition (DOI:10.1080/13506280444000454) and numerous other places. 4 Google scholar hits and 4 in google books is not large but is certainly seems to be real, used and and worthy of an article Peripitus (Talk) 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)