|WikiProject Journalism||(Rated Stub-class)|
Boy does this article need work
It needs sections on:
1) Mission 2) Usage/readership statistics 3) More history detail 4) The founder(s) 5) Controversy (if any)
I personally love "Science Daily" but number 5) should be as important as any other section, in the spirit of Wikipedia.
Also, calling Science Daily a "source" as the article currently does, is woefully inadequate. This is like calling "Wired Magazine" or "Slate" a 'source'.
As of this day, a use of the Science Daily search tool returns no hits for any of the following scientists who have published significant papers in reviewed journals calling into question the role of CO2 in climate change, supporting natural causes as being dominant: Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, Dr. Nir Shaviv, Dr. Jan Veizer, all of whom have Wikipedia entries.
I cannot find any article which seriously questions the status quo represented by the summary reports of the IPCC. At least on the subject of anthropogenic global warming, Science Daily shows significant journalistic bias. I would like to see some mention in the Science_Daily page of what entity or entities are responsible for content at sciencedaily.com, and some treatment of the apparent bias on climate change reporting.
It's not supposed to be a comprehensive Science Journal that misses nothing, it's for public consumption and highlights current discoveries and breakthroughs.