Talk:Visual modularity

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Psychology B‑class Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Mind C‑class Low‑importance

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of mind

Cleanup request

This article desperately needs some cleaning up. It reads like a student's term paper. I hope that someone with expertise in sensation and perception can take care of this.--Cassmus 07:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously disagree with the above: this is a fantastically precise article. If you want a debate spanning tens of thousands of words, all it would be necessary to do is put in brief summaries of the papers quoted in evidence. This is a really complex area of psychology and it pays to cut through all the debate and present a good outline of the area so that those interested have a basis for further research and those just breezing over it in reference from another section can get a rough outline.

If someone does want to expand this, I suggest they should do it tacked on to the bottom of the article and leave the summary as it is.

163.1.143.115 12:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this last comment. Very precise overview of complex area. Might also worth adding something about the two major pathways in the primate visual system (dorsal - ventral), as these seem to be doubly dissociable and committed to specific processing. 137.222.120.9 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree that this is clear, and precise overview of a complex area, however citation is done incorrectly for Wikipedia's standards, as well as as 'wikification' was limited, I helped to add a few more blue links to the page. Citation will take a fair bit of work, but is very possible! Neuro√Logic 05:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken on setting up all the citing properly (It's a long list, it might take me a couple of days to finish) it was written in line like an APA paper, no-no in Wikipedia. I'm listing the page as underconstruction, please don't move any of the references, I have purposefully left the in-text reference list to ensure I get everything. Thanks! Neuro√Logic 07:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name 'D. von Cameron' in the references is incorrect. The author should appear as 'D. Y. von Cramon'. Can anyone change this?