Talk:Robyn Arianrhod

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Robyn Arianrhod is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Edit request

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Specific text to be removed: Her treatment of Somerville has been criticized for ignoring Kathryn Neeley's earlier work on Somerville, and Grabiner (2013) also criticizes the book for its anachronistic treatment of lines of research that have been superseded by modern physics and its imprecise referencing to its source material

Reason for the change: deleting the lines referring to the critical reviews of Seduced by Logic - because this is such an unbalanced selection from all the reviews the book received, and it thereby contravenes the rules for Biographies of Living Persons.

References supporting change: See Wikipedia section on Biographies of living persons, writing style, balance.

Some urls https://www.amazon.com.au/Seduced-Logic-Somerville-Newtonian-Revolution/dp/0199931615

https://maa.org/press/maa-reviews/seduced-by-logic-milie-du-ch-telet-mary-somerville-and-the-newtonian-revolution

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261958167_Review_of_Seduced_by_Logic_Emilie_du_Chatelet_Mary_Somerville_and_the_Newtonian_Revolution_-_by_Robyn_Arianrhod

https://www.libraryjournal.com/review/seduced-by-logic-%C3%A9milie-du-ch%C3%A2telet-mary-somerville-and-the-newtonian-revolution

Mekanyst (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done I have added a more favorable quote from Grabiner's review (of which there were very few to choose from) in an attempt to restore some sort of WP:BALASP. Regards, Spintendo 03:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spintendo beat me to it. I also wanted to add something positive from this review, including that the reviewer called it "an impressively far-reaching book" but the Readings site is a book store like Amazon, and it's a staff review, which calls into question the review's reliability and neutrality. STEMinfo (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]