Talk:Underwater vision

message: The refractive indices of the aquaeous and vitreous humours are not relevant to underwater vision. The critical difference between viewing in air and in water is at the interface, the cornea. Once the light enters the cornea, the refractive properties of the remaining parts of eye are the same in air and in water.Robert P. O'Shea 07:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refractive indices of the aquaeous and vitreous humours

message: The topics should stay separate - the merge is not required as the topics are disparate. Visual perception is about photochemistry, neurological and psychological aspects of vision in humans. Underwater vision is a physical concept of visual distortions expected for aquatic life and divers - it is of sufficient scientific interest to deserve its spot on Wikipedia. EyeMD T|C 11:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not merge

message: * The first paragraph in Underwater vision#Biological variations is true :: I am myopic, and I without a diving mask I can see much better underwater than the textbooks say that I should be able to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological variations 

message: I just noticed a few edits back that a table was removed by an IP editor claiming that "A quote that large is plagarism, sourcing doesn't change that". It is worth noting that the work was a direct quote from Luria and therefore copyright free. Luria was a US Navy employee and this work was performed during the course of their team's research at the US Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory. Quoting US Government work with a proper citation is not plagarism or a violation of copyright. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it back. Since plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own, text which is attributed cannot be plagiarism. As you rightly point out, Gene, this sort of US Government work does not attract copyright, so there's no reason for us to exclude the text. Good catch! --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luria table removed 

message: Were values in Table of Light Absorption in pure water read off the graph http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/education-and-outreach/additional/science-focus/ocean-color/images/spectral_light_absorption.gif on http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/education-and-outreach/additional/science-focus/ocean-color/oceanblue.shtml? If so, there's not enough information (no ticks on Depth axis — can't believe this came from NASA) to give such precision. If not, please reference it. cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 17:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Light Absorption in pure water 

message: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as  is optional.Looks OK. 
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for , although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.Looks OK. 
The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.Looks OK. 
The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.Looks OK. 
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Adequately illustrated. 
Looks OK, Promoting to B-class • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-Class review 

message: This article is absolute garbage. Why is an article about something that marine life are known for so ridiculously human-centric? Aside from the single bit on fishes this article somehow extensively talks about the limitations of human underwater vision and all about diving goggles and stuff. 
Go look at the article for night vision. That article is all about how it works in animals because humans don't have it. That's how this article should be but it isn't. 
When people think of looking up an article on underwater vision, they probably want info on marine biology and how underwater vision works on marine life, yet instead they get this. 
Please, make this article better. This is ridiculous. 2001:44C8:41C4:F2C1:2028:6B20:8681:B0CA (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article on an aspect of marine biology so human-centric?