Talk:Illusory conjunctions

We would like to improve this page by adding and elaborating the following: Studies, elaborate and cite the theories, brain processes, physiology of the eye in relation to the concept, basic info about illusions, why this is important, what it is related to, table of contents, images, adding credible references, external links/further readings, overview of content, bibliography, encoding and perception, history/discovery, influential people.

      mackey14321  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackey14321 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Comments

Please fix the references so you're not double citing, and only cite the sources you use. Also, hyperlink to Wikipedia definitions of terms like attention, visual fixation, Octave Illusion, etc. The opening paragraph should be shorter and more clear. The sub-headings should each be further developed. Finally, this needs a careful copy editing. ProfRox (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classmate Comments

I like your beginning paragraph. It is a bit long but it is easily understandable for readers who don't know anything about this subject. I didn't understand what your picture was trying to convey to the reader. Maybe you could make that more clear? Is there anything else that you could add to the smaller sections? Kswen09 —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Overall I thought that it was very informative and easy to follow. The only thing that wasn't as clear was the picture, but after enlarging it and seeing the text, it was easily understood. It might be helpful for the reader to either enlarge the picture or add a caption to explain it. Also, I personally would like to know some possible theories as to why our brains group the stimuli, so it might be helpful to briefly state some conjectures as to why that is. --Morsecode22 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a very good start, but it definitely needs more information. The study you described in the opening paragraph should probably have its own section with more detail. You could also add more under the other headings you have or combine some of them. The references at the end should have their own number; right now it looks like a jumble. Basically more details and explanation. PsychLove13 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)PsychLove13[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illusory conjunctions. 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://web.archive.org/web/20111023215053/http://psych.princeton.edu/psychology/research/treisman/index.php to http://psych.princeton.edu/psychology/research/treisman/index.php

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) 02:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]