Talk:Inverted binocular phenomenon

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Too short and lonely

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is too short, has very few citatations and is not well categorized. I also think that is relies too heavily on a single source. As it has been tagged with template, this article is an orphan. So I request editors to elaborate this article and add links to other articles in Wikipedia. Experts are always welcome to take a closer look and contribute, if possible. Roshu Bangal (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nobody's ever called this "inverted binocular phenomenon"

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

No sources call it that. There are at most two sources that talk about this, one that talks about the first. This might be at most a few sentences on a page about phantom limbs or something, not a full article. Ldan JustARandomSquid (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Got to agree. A single primary-source paper followed by a regurgitation in Scientific American looks questionable evidence that the topic meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply