Talk:Fixational Eye Movement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AleksNemo, SEReichert, TSantos, Hphan1719.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary Source(s)

Since this is a new researching topic, there are not many available secondary sources. Reference 4, 5, 12, 20, 21, 23 are primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hphan1719 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

Overall this is a pretty good article. If you are able to, I would try to expand on a few of the introductions for each other the three types. The grammar and wording in a few of the paragraphs can use some improvement. For example, the first sentence in the introduction is worded weirdly and doesn’t really flow. I would also give a brief description of fovea because not everyone knows what that is. I also was wondering as to why “fixational eye movments” is in quotations in the introductory paragraph? I would also give a tiny description of what saccades are. I know there is a link to another wiki article but maybe give a brief definition of it. In the microsaccades section, I would consider maybe rewriting some parts of the medical application part. A lot of it is repetitive and you can combine some sentences together to make it flow better because it’s a bit choppy at the moment. I would also take out the phrase “though sounds interesting” because that sounds like an opinion on the medical application. Reference 4, “the significance of microsaccades for vision and oculomotor control”, is a secondary source and the information taken from there is relevant to where it is mentioned in the Wiki page. All the sources used in the article were cited as needed. I do like the flow from one topic to the other and the overall organization of it all. The pictures were good and fit in the article, however I would maybe give a little explanation as to what the picture in the microsaccade section is about. Overall good job with the article and keep up the good work. TEckert412 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary review

Overall, I believe that the article is well organized and contain crucial information like medical application of each type of fixational eye movement. Also, those moving images and pictures greatly enhance the understanding of the topics since it was rather hard for me to visualize. In terms of understanding, it would be helpful if you link any of those specific terms that are mentioned briefly in the text like Brownian motion and Brainstem Biometrics. --Jungi0714 (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary review

Really well organized page, interesting information, helpful images. Good job with the development of the three categories. My biggest concern with this article is the grammatical errors, as they are distracting and take away from the good work you have done. For instance, the very first sentence is missing a word and is just kind of confusing. Throughout, there are small grammar issues, that once fixed, will make the article much stronger. Moosejammies (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This is an interesting topic-definitely something I had never heard of before. I like the overall format of the page. The matching headings under each of the three movements you talk about makes it easy to follow. One comment: you mention in the intro that drift and tremor have different boundaries but never clarify what those are. Also, google searching your topic leads to a fixation (visual) article on wikipedia that mentions some of the same the same ideas but also talks about other things or uses different language. Might be worth taking a look at. Pottera1129 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall I think your article is off to a really good start. Like some of the other reviewers have already mentioned, your grammar, especially in the introduction, needs some work. I would recommend reading the article aloud to determine if it flows smoothly in some areas. Additionally I think you should link some terms in your article to other Wikipedia pages. I believe “foveae” in your first sentence should be fovea, which has another Wikipedia article to link it to. I really liked the images in the article and the organization of the 3 types seems to flow nicely and give a good introduction to each type of fixational eye movement. Vschloegel (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

Overall, I believe you guys did a good job. I will first go over the "Good Article Criteria." 1. The grammar and sentence structure/wording could be improved, especially in the introductory paragraph. Also, make sure that every word in the title headings are capitalized. 2. Links were all cited properly. 3. Your information was broad and stayed important to the topic of the 3 recognized mechanisms of fixation eye movement that you mentioned in the introduction paragraph. 4. For the most part, I believe you stayed neutral, but some of your wording made it sound like some scientists preferred some theories over others, or that some were more accepted than others, which may or may not show some bias? That's up to you guys to decide if you want to edit that or not, because I'm not entirely sure about that. 5. It was stable and isn't changing from day-to-day. 6. I really liked your images! And yes, they were cited and captioned properly.

As for secondary sources, I chose Source 1, which brought me to the journal website confirming that it is a credible secondary source, but I had trouble accessing the article to be able to comment on the information that was taken from the secondary source and added to the Wiki page.

Furthermore, I would suggest reading through your Wiki page to fix the grammar errors and to possibly re-word some sentences so that they are easier to follow and so that they make more sense. Nothing too major to worry about! Like I said, overall, well done! Skakos18 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

The topic is very interesting, and I really enjoyed reading it and looking at the images. Some suggestions to improve your article would be to fix the grammatical errors throughout the article. For example in your first sentence you say "When encounter an object" you might want to say when humans encounter. I liked your intro paragraph because it gives the reader an overview of what your going to go over in more detail further in the article. Overall great job with the article! Kmorun (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This article was interesting to read & presented a lot of new information. I like that you guys talked about medical applications, maybe elaborate more on them? Also, maybe consider looking more into the eye structure and the structures' relationship with the various eye movements. If you were to pursue this, it would be beneficial to include a diagram of the eye towards the top of the article. As for grammar and readability, the first half of the article is rather awkward. It reads kind of like someone is talking to you. Try not to use "in other words," just say it in the easiest way possible. There are various errors, in addition to awkward phrasing. You should avoid saying "scientists" or "researchers" are doing something because it doesn't read very well. Instead, try rephrasing to make the research the subject of the sentence. Also, try making your images larger because it's hard to read them. You guys did a great job picking stuff to hyperlink--it was really helpful. Great job! Sarapardej (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall, great organization and great images. This really made reading the article a lot easier and enjoyable. I really like how you guys made a standard for each of the fixational eye movements. By providing a description followed by the mechanisms and medical applications of each type helped me compare the three to each other. As others have mentioned, this can be proofread a little more to correct grammar mistakes. Good job guys.

Kuya365 (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

I found this article to be extremely interesting, as I never knew what fixation eye movement was. Overall, it is a well-written article, most of the article is coherent, but there are parts of it that need to be reviewed. Actually, the very first sentence of the article does not make sense, or using quotation marks when they are not needed. Also, think about still explaining what some of the terms are even if they are just link to another page. It might be a good idea to include a short explanation to save readers time by not having to read an entire other page. Looking through the sources, it looks like everything was correctly cited. The article as a whole does stay on its topic, i.e. fixational eye movement, and does explain what it is before going into different types of fixational eye movements. The article also doesn’t go into unnecessary detail. For the most part the article is written from a neutral perspective, I couldn’t really find any indication that it wasn’t neutral. The illustrations on the wiki page are great, except for the microsaccade image, if there is one that shows what it is, and isn’t a random correlations image, it would add to the article more because unless I read the article wrong, the correlation image is not talked about in the wiki article and is just kind of there. Secondary Source Review: I looked at reference 5: Microsaccades counteract perceptual filling-in. I looked at the article and it looks like it is a primary article and not a secondary article. I did notice that the Talk Page said that there was not much secondary review literature on this topic, though. It is from a credible source, I had no issue accessing the article, and it looks like the enough information that actually pertains to the topic was added to the wiki page.

2974hurtadm (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

The article is well written and obviously all of the information and sources are there. I would fine comb the grammar and look at a few of your definitions for revision. For example, the very first line does not seem to read correctly. Likewise, there could be some clarification between microsaccades and saccades. Are they the exact same thing? or is one a category of the other? In the medical application for microsaccades section there is a bit of redundancy over it being debated, and in the sentences about researching them. The information under ocular rifts is very well done I would use it as a template for the other sections and probably leave this one untouched. The only thing would be if there is more information to add it, otherwise, I think this section is very well written and clear. The ocular microtremor section is also really well written and does not seem to have many grammatical errors. Again if anything can be added especially to the medical application that would be helpful. It seems this form has the most clinical or medical application so that may be something to highlight even further if you can find the information on it. I would also consider writing brief descriptions for the words, which you link to other articles. Obviously, the point is the person can look them up if they want, but a quick description might be helpful so the person does not end up losing their original place or article. Other than that a picture or two from one of the sources would be great in explaining what you are talking about. Obviously google probably won't have a whole lot on this but hopefully, some of the primary sources you have will have created their own diagrams of pictures you could use. Source #20 appears to be a primary source but you stated that you had some in your article so it seems fine to use. It's definitely a good primary source and you do a good job of not over explaining the study but just drawing on it as a possible implication or medical use. Glancing at a few of your other sources it appears that your first source is secondary so there should not be a big problem with your sources.

ErikEastwood (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Primary Review of TEckert412

Thank you for your review. My group has done all of your suggestions. We fixed the grammar in the Introduction part. We also added a few sentences to distinguish saccades and microsacceds. All of the unnecessary repeated and biased terms should be gone by now. The diagram for microsaccades seems to dig too deep into experimental procedures, so we deleted it since it doesn't offer anything to the table. Lastly, please note that the article is now merged with another article, called "Fixation (visual)."

Hphan1719 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC) SEReichert (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC) TSantos (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC) AleksNemo (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Primary Review of Skakos18

Thank you for your review. My group has done all of your suggestions. The grammar has been fixed to make the article flow better. All of the unnecessary repeated and biased terms should be gone by now. The article you were trying to access is pay-to-view which Marquette network has paid for. So if you were using your home network, you might not be able to see it. Lastly, please note that the article is now merged with another article, called "Fixation (visual)."

Hphan1719 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC) SEReichert (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC) TSantos (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC) AleksNemo (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Primary Review of 2974hurtadm

Thank you for your review. My group has done all of your suggestions. The grammar has been fixed to make the article flow better. Hopefully, there are less confusions now. There are brief descriptions for mentioned terms, along with the links to their articles. The diagram for microsaccades seems to dig too deep into experimental procedures, so we deleted it since it doesn't offer anything to the table. Lastly, please note that the article is now merged with another article, called "Fixation (visual)."

Hphan1719 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC) SEReichert (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC) TSantos (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC) AleksNemo (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Primary Review of ErikEastwood

Thank you for your review. My group has done all of your suggestions. The grammar has been fixed to make the article flow better. All of the unnecessary repeated and biased terms should be gone by now. There are also brief descriptions for mentioned terms, along with the links to their articles. There are some more ideas about the medical applications of fixational eye movements but they are from unreliable sources lacking of citations and creditibility, so my group decided to not include them in the article. Lastly, please note that the article is now merged with another article, called "Fixation (visual)."

Hphan1719 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC) SEReichert (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC) TSantos (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC) AleksNemo (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)