Talk:Susan J. Crockford

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Psayasith.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Lead section: Typo. should be “Canadian” not “Canadaian.” I would also consider adding her date of birth where you first mention Crockford’s name. In the “Early life and Education” section, I think that the semicolon is misuses. Consider breaking those two sentences apart instead. Article: I feel that the “Career” section of your article is rather disorganized and can seem overwhelming upon first glance. Consider breaking this up into like books that she published/worked on, documentaries she was featured in, etc so the information is not coming at the reader all at once. I think it was a nice touch to add to the “Controversy” section. Be sure not to sound biased in such claims, however. References: I think you have a good amount of resource. Consider adding more about the books she has written and perhaps awards she has received. Many of your references have to do with her early life, but you can delve deeper. Good start! Madelinehartman (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Peyton,

Good work on the article! I'm going to review it in Wikipedia format (their peer edit guidelines), but overall it's super well fleshed out. Lots of information, which is great.

1. A lead section that is easy to understand Lead section I think is one of the strong points of this article. It would be nice if the other sections were this succinct, or perhaps broken up a little bit more, so it reads easier.

2. A clear structure The structure I would actually make a few edits to. It's your call on how exactly to do it, but I would recommend breaking up Career into a few different sections (maybe temporally). Alternatively, you could cut portions that aren't relevant to Susan Crockford herself — for example, the sentence where you state what the suspected function of the thyroid is. I'd recommend either cutting that, or tying it in to her specifically (e.g. "Her main point in this book focused on the thyroid, which she claimed affected homeostasis... etc).

3. Balanced coverage This piece does a good job of focusing on her career: her authored work and her debates with other zoologists. That being said, perhaps you could break it up into 'authored work', 'public debates', and other sections. I'm sure it's hard to find information on her non-work-life, but that would be appreciated in a reader looking to learn more about her.

4. Neutral content Content seems reasonably neutral. It does seem to defend her side a little bit more, but I think since it's an article about her, presenting her case in public debates is unavoidable. Perhaps add in a bit about the counter-arguments made by other scientists, in order to ensure neutrality? Your call.

5. Reliable sources Very nice work! Well cited, well referenced article. Even the one blog post you chose to use is very well supported with citations throughout the text they've put up. Nice variation, from PBS to Financial Post. I think this really excels; ten sources of this quality is great.

6. Other I read the comments from Madeline, so I won't comment additionally on those things for which she suggested changes. Mostly, I'd just change the formatting to make it a little more readable. Perhaps add a photo of her. Overall, this article has a lot of information. MeyerCord (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"scientific consensus" on polar bears?

I am not sure there is a scientific consensus on the polar bear situation.

If someone has RS about scientific consensus. That is, not newspaper / activists views, please cite. (Lede) Jazi Zilber (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@@YechezkelZilber: The lede uses the IUCN as a proxy for "scientific consensus." Since IUCN is advocacy organization, I would instead rank it on the same level as Greenpeace or Amnesty International; i.e., not a WP:RS. Until someone brings a proper source, the sentence or the clause within the sentence ought to be removed. XavierItzm (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no. It's not Polar Bears International or the WWF. The IUCN ranks species for conservation. Their rankings are peer-reviewed literature reviews and data analyses. If you like, the equivalent set of reviews from different sets of scientists (COSEWIC, USFWS) could be added. To say that there is not a "consensus" among polar bear scientists that polar bears are threatened (i.e., as defined by the IUCN, it means facing massive potential population decline) by climate change is completely asinine. The points of debate are whether or not climate change will actually drive them extinct (or just severely reduce their numbers) and if so, when. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

'zoologist'

Is this really the right job title, considering she does not publish in scientific journals and her work is not peer-reviewed? Also considering the fact that she was let go from her only job at an actual research institution, and is not taken seriously by virtually any of the scientific community. Would 'author and blogger on zoological and climate science topics' not be a more accurate description? Devgirl (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. I see that you've gone ahead and changed, but don't see that you have consensus. We have newspaper sources that call her a zoologist, for example Financial Post, Washington Times, CBC. Her PhD thesis was in a zoological subject. She has been at least a minor co-author of 38 articles in what appear to be science-related publications (including Science). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)