Talk:Popular Science

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Magazines Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

"Average subscriber household income of over $100,000.".. That's amazing! I read PCGamer, so I'm guessing the average income is about 25,000. Oh wait, HOUSEHOLD income, including husbands, wives and anyone else living there. Scratch that, it's not that impressive anymore, just medium to lower-upper class ^_^ JayKeaton 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there's a good chance that the average man who reads PopSci doesn't have a wife or kids... :) -- Kicking222 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about the magazine and film short series. For the general concept of interpreting science for a broad audience, see popular science.".. i dont see any thing in this artical about films. was that portion removed or is this a typo? Usnn 15:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked that there are no cites for this article. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books archive of Popular Science

I just stumbled across the Popular Science archive in Google Books a few days ago. The pages of each issue can be direct-linked, and so now Wikipedians have a way to add just an insanely huge amount of verifiable cites in articles. For example:

Study of Northern Lights Leads to Invention of New Compass, Popular Science, May 1932, p40, Scanned by Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=1ScDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA39

I've started a category to go along with it for Google Books, and I should probably make a second category for Popular Science itself:

Category:Articles with verifiable citations via Google Books

The wealth and breadth of material covered by Popular Science over the years is so massive that I think it may turn out to be a major contributor to Wikipedia articles.

DMahalko (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citable?

Hi, I got the March 2009 issue and I found some facts and estimations for various things, some of which have articles on this site. Does this magazine count as a source that can be cited or is it best not to? Thank you. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource Popular Science Project

Hi guys,

I just wanted to let you guys know that Wikisource has a project for adding and proofreading the Popular Science issues that have fallen into the public domain. That project can be found here. There is a lot of work to be done, but once we get the issues ready, it would be great to add a link from Wikipedia to the project. I just thought I would mention it here on this discussion page. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]