Talk:Watercolor illusion
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Expand
[edit]Since there isn't a lot of information on watercolor illusions, we are going to expand on the topic of watercolor illusions. We are going to add sections to the article such as what watercolor illusion is, the effects of watercolor illusion,and mechanisms of watercolor illusion. We hope to add pictures and tables of watercolor illusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ama6313 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Great job! Content-wise, I think the concept is explained well. As for Wiki-style formating I would consider linking your citations to your reference section rather than parenthetically citing using the Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). format. DMB2011 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
One question I have regards the Coloration Effect section.In the 3rd and 4th sentence it states: "Some of the main properties can be shown through an object that has an inner orange line and an outer purple line. The coloration, an orange hue inside of the object"... Does the coloration effect work with different colors or is it only purple and orange? If it does, I might note that. Otherwise good job! PsychBoss(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
Prof Comments
[edit]Great job expanding this stub. Some suggestions / areas for clarification. First paragraph: Are you sure this spread occurs in the visual cortex rather than in the thalamus, retina, V4 or extrastriate cortex? There’s a comma splice in the third sentence of the coloration effect section. I’m unsure what “the coloration is complete by 100 ms” means. Typo in coloration effect condition 13. In the neural processing section, what do you mean by “it must travel through the visual system”? What is the “it” in that sentence? There are extrastriate cortical areas besides V2 – V4. ProfRox (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Classmate Comments
[edit]I thought this was a very good article. The information was very good along with a lot of information pertaining to the phenomonon. I did notice a number of typos so I think you will probably want to read over your work a few more times just to make sure everything is spelled and worded correctly. Otherwise I think the stub is very informative.Mackey14321 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)