User:Classic Bee/Evaluate an Article

Review by Classic Bee

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating this article on Visual Perception.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
One reason I chose this article to evaluate is because it was overwhelming how many different Wikipedia pages there are, and I was familiar with the topic of Visual Perception. Another reason I chose this article is because, while I have learned about this topic a good bit, I am by no means a expert. Therefore, I am hoping I can provide some helpful evaluation on how well the author(s) explains such complex concepts from the perspective of a psychology major with little specialization in visual perception.

Research on visual perception provides important insight on how visual input can influence how we interact with our external world. Such research includes studies on how vision works, what the visual system prioritizes, and how we measure visual perception. My preliminary impression is that this article attempts to address such topics through the inclusion of supporting secondary accounts in a neutral manner.

Evaluate the article
The article "Visual Perception" was interesting and informative. It pulls from both historical and modern sources of information to provide theoretical and scientific accounts on what visual perception is and the evolution of methodologies utilized to arrive at such conclusions. The lead section begins with a definition of what visual perception is and provides insight into its applications. From this section alone I do not yet understand what this article is going to cover. It could be beneficial to elaborate on the subject and be more detailed in describing the included contents.

The content regarding the visual system did provide a biological understanding of this system, but I have some suggestions that could be worth considering:


 * It sounds like the information is taken straight from the study, as opposed to being written in the author's original words
 * It lacks proper citations. The first citation was in the second paragraph after the author already introduced new information like cornea, lens, photoreceptive cells, etc., and this novelty warrants proof of credibility.
 * Including some visualization of the pathway by which light takes throughout the eyes and brain could aid readers in following the the dense material about the mechanisms of the visual system.

In discussing the second section, "Study", I also suggest:


 * Avoid phrases like "the major problem in visual perception". It makes the article seem less neutral. And if this really is a problem in visual perception, who specifically highlighted this major problem and how did they do so?
 * Before even diving into any of these sections, it could be helpful to explain to the readers what content is included
 * Have better organization within the "Early Studies" subheading
 * Maybe sub-sub headings labelled emissions and intromissions theories, binocular vision, peripheral vision, and colors?
 * Having "Study" be its own main heading implies that the subheadings under this category will provide information that is different from the main heading that follows. In this case I do not understand why the following sections are separate and not considered studies.
 * Put the following sections ("Cognitive and Computational Approaches", etc.), under the heading of "Studies". Therefore the content in this article is weighed more equally and does not place an unnecessary burden on the following sections to provide significantly different or new information
 * The explanation of Emission Theory is very scientific yet does say where this information came from.
 * Opponent Process section also is very scientific and dense, and lacks proper citation.
 * All of the sections seem to explain some historical figure(s)/researcher/case study, something that was being studying, and a theory as a result of these studies. The sections on Gestalt Theory, Transduction, Opponent Process, and Artificial Visual Perception lack these important details.
 * Of the three images included, I only found the one about eye movement (Yarbus 1967) to be helpful.
 * The one about Leonardo Davinci, could have been more relevant if, in the section of Davinci, the author talked more about peripheral vision and how the image shows this.

Regarding the organization of the content, I have already mentioned how it could possibly make more sense to put everything after "Study" under the main heading of "Study". But also:


 * "Transduction" and "Opponent Process" could fit under one category of "Transduction" (or "The Retina"?), with subheadings based on the three different cell layers (ex. What the photoreceptors are responsible for, versus the bipolar cell layer (if relevant), and finally the ganglion cell layer.
 * Unless Opponent Process has nothing to do with Transduction... If that is the case then I would recommend the main heading be about the retina (and maybe explain the research done to arrive at the facts mentioned before getting into it's three layers, which could still serve as the subheadings).
 * You could then explain opponent process under the "Ganglion Cell Layer" subheading

Overall, this article relates to things I learned in my psychology classes over the years while also teaching me some new information. I would say it was written clearly and concisely, but at times too concise. Additionally, the information could have been organized a bit better in order to help me understand the research and findings on visual perception. The author does a good job in addressing available research on the subject, but I am surprised they did not directly discuss studies on color, visual illusions, or vision disorders (though they did include a "See Also" heading which contained links to pages about these and more). Finally, this article does not address any of Wikipedia's equity gaps nor include a diverse spectrum of authors. An elaboration on the more current studies in their references and the researchers involved in those could possibly help.