Talk:Sarah A. Radcliffe

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

Biography: Science and Academia

	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
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Geography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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 scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Notes

Geography 460 – Political Geography Autumn Quarter 2005 Ohio State University reading list

I simply do not believe this! Yet another puff for an obscure academic, and a geographer at that. Who is responsible for this? Is it the same person whose outrageous puffs are criticized elsewhere? See discussion about David Harvey, Derek Gregory and Michael Watts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.201.235 (talk • contribs)

This is a bit silly. A major academic is notable for certain audiences--particularly other academics. It does no harm to include an entry in them on Wikipedia. And in this specific case--and for David Harvey and Michael Watts (I'm not sure about Gregory)--the academics in question are widely read outside their discipline. 131.111.8.98 16:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not silly. I don't think even close friends of this particular entry would describe her as 'a major academic'. So the question remains: why does she have this entry? Contrary to the above inference, there is a promotional campaign afoot where Wikipedia entries for academic geographers are concerned. Until we know who the authors of such puffs are, and why they write them, the suspicion that they are the work of subordinates or clients will remain. 10 July 2007.

I have to agree that the notability is in question here. I am adding a notability tag to the article. There need to be more reliable, independent sources to point to significance. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]