Talk:Chubb illusion

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

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

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? 86.181.173.147 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on this. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Copyedit

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chubb illusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130222050134/http://www.purveslab.net/research/explanation/brightness/chubb.html to http://www.purveslab.net/research/explanation/brightness/chubb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]