Talk:Visual neuroscience

Untitled
Should this have a history section?

Comments
In order to familiarize the scientists at Smith-Kettlewell with wikipedia practices/advantages I create "placeholder" entries that provide the essence of what the named topic will contain.

For some reason the entry on infant vision had its body "reverted" with a redirect to infant (which does not have any significant information about vision in infants) without explanation. I re-entered it after yanksox had redirected it twice - I believe either in error or at least without explanation.

Love. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Love26 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

this article needed a lot more to it. --Krystathedancer (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that revising the paragraph was a good idea along with adding the citiation...it would have been nice to have seen another citation or additional information added to the article Rameyer13 (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Potential References
JSchaef (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a good beginning to an article. It states what the topic exactly is, but I'm still not sure what exactly it means. This could be a good article if how visual neuroscience worked in the mind through the eyes was explained and possibly how it was discovered. A few examples may help for better understanding. After reading this article, I am still uncertain about the topic. Jesanchrs (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)