This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Natural scientific research in Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a very detailed article but.. it's too long.. plus there are various MOS problems with the content. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It may be the most experimental of the social sciences, but psychology is not a natural science. Arnoutf ( talk) 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The use of the word science to describe Aboriginal knowledge may be anachronistic, and this section has no place on this article unless there are sources to corroborate the claims it makes. This section is more of an opinion piece than anything pertinent in the context of Wikipedia. I am taking the liberty of removing this section, and it is my hope that it will not be added until adequate sources are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.149.53 ( talk) 01:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This type of article is the only one of it's kind for any country on Wikipedia. The article itself discussing "Natural Scientific Research in Canada" is a poor choice relative to either a general "Scientific Research in Canada" article with a section on the history of scientific research in Canada, or a "History of Scientific Research in Canada". As it stands the article is appallingly dense, it mentions "natural sciences" in the title of the article then goes onto to incorrectly define it by every standard, including the definition given by the Natural Science page itself. The first non-intro paragraph is literally a listing of early European travellers who made it to some part of what would be Canada in +300 years, no article on Canadian natural scientific research should be discussing things that occurred 50 years prior to the birth of Francis Bacon or Galileo Galilei.
Personally I would argue the correct choice is to rename the page to it's redirect in Scientific Research in Canada. There are useful parts of this article that could fill in multiple sections of the history of scientific research in Canada, however as it stands this article needs an entire rewrite from the ground up. SlowBrainEdits ( talk) 00:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Natural scientific research in Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a very detailed article but.. it's too long.. plus there are various MOS problems with the content. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It may be the most experimental of the social sciences, but psychology is not a natural science. Arnoutf ( talk) 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The use of the word science to describe Aboriginal knowledge may be anachronistic, and this section has no place on this article unless there are sources to corroborate the claims it makes. This section is more of an opinion piece than anything pertinent in the context of Wikipedia. I am taking the liberty of removing this section, and it is my hope that it will not be added until adequate sources are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.149.53 ( talk) 01:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This type of article is the only one of it's kind for any country on Wikipedia. The article itself discussing "Natural Scientific Research in Canada" is a poor choice relative to either a general "Scientific Research in Canada" article with a section on the history of scientific research in Canada, or a "History of Scientific Research in Canada". As it stands the article is appallingly dense, it mentions "natural sciences" in the title of the article then goes onto to incorrectly define it by every standard, including the definition given by the Natural Science page itself. The first non-intro paragraph is literally a listing of early European travellers who made it to some part of what would be Canada in +300 years, no article on Canadian natural scientific research should be discussing things that occurred 50 years prior to the birth of Francis Bacon or Galileo Galilei.
Personally I would argue the correct choice is to rename the page to it's redirect in Scientific Research in Canada. There are useful parts of this article that could fill in multiple sections of the history of scientific research in Canada, however as it stands this article needs an entire rewrite from the ground up. SlowBrainEdits ( talk) 00:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)