This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infant visual development article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2012. Further details are available here. |
in my opinion, the references section could be better formatted 169.235.14.253 ( talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Pikez33
Somebody named "yanksox" is vandalizing this page by redirecting it to a totally inappropriate entry.
There doesn't seem to be any way to stop this annoying action.
Love.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Love26 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC).
The entry may 'touch base' on the senses but it is both inaccurate and misleading in the case of the field of infant vision. The consideration that the underlying science of the matter expounded in "infant vision" should be in "pediatric ophthalmology" is totally misguided since the practice of pediatric ophthalmology is rooted in the science of infant vision, not the other way 'round. At any rate the decisions about which hierarchy previals in wikipedia should be left in the hands of those whose careers are entwined in such matters. The idea that having links to the science of something is some sort of spam/phish undertaking is ludicrous. Love.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Love26 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC).
As written, the article appears to be nothing more than spam for Smith-Kettlewell. A redirect or merge is may be warranted given the amount and type of information that is currently provided. I suggest
Visual perception. Article looks much better now. -
AED
21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)last edited 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
Oppose:
Against:
As this entry grows from its present near-placeholder status, it should have gathered edits/add-ons from people in the field. love26.
I believe the following link would be of merit to the article. However, MrOllie has removed it. If you disagree with MrOllie then I will repost.
(Link redacted)
It is a 'baby' eyesight simulator you can enter the age of a new born and select an image to simulate the child's eyesight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Young1991 ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedia World, My name is Sepura and I am an undergraduate student at Georgia Tech. I am currently working on this Wikipedia article regarding infant vision for my class project in Intro to Neuro with Dr Potter. Please read my article and provide me with any additional modifications that will enhance my article. Thank you.
Sepura
Hi! With numbers - such as (one month-old infant, three month-old infants, after six months) ...do you write it out in words or do you write it in numerical numbers (1 month-old infant, 3 month-old infants, after 6 months)? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sepura (
talk •
contribs)
18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I am really sorry. I have a few more questions. I am trying make my wiki article to look outstanding by using images and stuff. One of my peer-reviewers mentioned that I should add a picture of the anatomy of the eye (retina, cornea) - should I do that? I wasn't sure if that was a good idea considering that I briefly mentioned it. I was wondering if there are any other ways to make my wiki article stand out. Also should I leave my references in column form or not? I wasn't sure when to use it.
Thanks, Sepura ( talk) 19:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura
Oh sorry I didnt realize that was what you meant until now. haha thanks for pointing it out.
Sepura (
talk)
21:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura
I think I fixed all of it. Is that what you meant by the spacing? Sepura ( talk) 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura
Hi Thanks for replying. I was thinking of adding the following images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray872.png (thats of ciliary muscles) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lateral_orbit_nerves.jpg (thats of muscles of orbit). These were the only two i could find on wikimedia commons and they are already used in their respective pages. Is it okay that I reuse them here? Also, would I put them right on top of one another? side by side? Sepura ( talk) 23:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura
Hi. Thanks for helping me out. I was wondering if its better to make bullets in the caption of the images. There are many changes that occur in the physiology of the eye overtime - those are just a few of the important ones. I dont want anyone to think that is all of them. I was hoping to make bullets and say that some of the changes are... Are we allowed to make bullets in captions under images? How do I go about doing so? Thanks again, Sepura ( talk) 04:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura
The result of the move request was: moved to Infant visual development. There is a clear consensus to move, so much so that by the conclusion of the discussion no one was in favour of the current title. That being the case, I have decided to close this as moved. I've gone with "Infant visual development" as the title because it seemed to receive the most support (several comments were vague about which title they were supporting) and I found the arguments in favour of it to be the most logically sound. No prejudice against a new discussion with any of the other variants as the proposed title. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Infant vision →
Development of the visual system – I propose we move this article to a more comprehensive 'development of - ' style article that includes development in infants and adults as it is expanded. I think this article is too large to be merged into
Visual system but that it's unnecessary to have a split all the way to "Infant vision" at this stage. A 'Development of-' article can act as a central focus for this information as the article is developed.
Tom (LT) (
talk) 23:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk)
08:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infant visual development article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2012. Further details are available here. |
in my opinion, the references section could be better formatted 169.235.14.253 ( talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Pikez33
Somebody named "yanksox" is vandalizing this page by redirecting it to a totally inappropriate entry.
There doesn't seem to be any way to stop this annoying action.
Love.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Love26 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC).
The entry may 'touch base' on the senses but it is both inaccurate and misleading in the case of the field of infant vision. The consideration that the underlying science of the matter expounded in "infant vision" should be in "pediatric ophthalmology" is totally misguided since the practice of pediatric ophthalmology is rooted in the science of infant vision, not the other way 'round. At any rate the decisions about which hierarchy previals in wikipedia should be left in the hands of those whose careers are entwined in such matters. The idea that having links to the science of something is some sort of spam/phish undertaking is ludicrous. Love.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Love26 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC).
As written, the article appears to be nothing more than spam for Smith-Kettlewell. A redirect or merge is may be warranted given the amount and type of information that is currently provided. I suggest
Visual perception. Article looks much better now. -
AED
21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)last edited 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
Oppose:
Against:
As this entry grows from its present near-placeholder status, it should have gathered edits/add-ons from people in the field. love26.
I believe the following link would be of merit to the article. However, MrOllie has removed it. If you disagree with MrOllie then I will repost.
(Link redacted)
It is a 'baby' eyesight simulator you can enter the age of a new born and select an image to simulate the child's eyesight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Young1991 ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedia World, My name is Sepura and I am an undergraduate student at Georgia Tech. I am currently working on this Wikipedia article regarding infant vision for my class project in Intro to Neuro with Dr Potter. Please read my article and provide me with any additional modifications that will enhance my article. Thank you.
Sepura
Hi! With numbers - such as (one month-old infant, three month-old infants, after six months) ...do you write it out in words or do you write it in numerical numbers (1 month-old infant, 3 month-old infants, after 6 months)? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sepura (
talk •
contribs)
18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I am really sorry. I have a few more questions. I am trying make my wiki article to look outstanding by using images and stuff. One of my peer-reviewers mentioned that I should add a picture of the anatomy of the eye (retina, cornea) - should I do that? I wasn't sure if that was a good idea considering that I briefly mentioned it. I was wondering if there are any other ways to make my wiki article stand out. Also should I leave my references in column form or not? I wasn't sure when to use it.
Thanks, Sepura ( talk) 19:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura
Oh sorry I didnt realize that was what you meant until now. haha thanks for pointing it out.
Sepura (
talk)
21:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura
I think I fixed all of it. Is that what you meant by the spacing? Sepura ( talk) 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura
Hi Thanks for replying. I was thinking of adding the following images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray872.png (thats of ciliary muscles) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lateral_orbit_nerves.jpg (thats of muscles of orbit). These were the only two i could find on wikimedia commons and they are already used in their respective pages. Is it okay that I reuse them here? Also, would I put them right on top of one another? side by side? Sepura ( talk) 23:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura
Hi. Thanks for helping me out. I was wondering if its better to make bullets in the caption of the images. There are many changes that occur in the physiology of the eye overtime - those are just a few of the important ones. I dont want anyone to think that is all of them. I was hoping to make bullets and say that some of the changes are... Are we allowed to make bullets in captions under images? How do I go about doing so? Thanks again, Sepura ( talk) 04:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura
The result of the move request was: moved to Infant visual development. There is a clear consensus to move, so much so that by the conclusion of the discussion no one was in favour of the current title. That being the case, I have decided to close this as moved. I've gone with "Infant visual development" as the title because it seemed to receive the most support (several comments were vague about which title they were supporting) and I found the arguments in favour of it to be the most logically sound. No prejudice against a new discussion with any of the other variants as the proposed title. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Infant vision →
Development of the visual system – I propose we move this article to a more comprehensive 'development of - ' style article that includes development in infants and adults as it is expanded. I think this article is too large to be merged into
Visual system but that it's unnecessary to have a split all the way to "Infant vision" at this stage. A 'Development of-' article can act as a central focus for this information as the article is developed.
Tom (LT) (
talk) 23:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk)
08:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)