Talk:Live Science Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Live_Science
 | 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 | |
Stub |
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality 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. | |
Is it \'liv\ or \'līv\ Science? 166.137.210.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the reliability and credibility of this site? Factual or Pseudo-Science?
60.242.247.177 (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I checked a few articles; all appeared to be based on peer-reviewed publications in reputable journals. Scanning the headlines in article lists did not raise pseudo-science red flags with me. --Lambiam 13:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Today's front page includes these articles:
- "8 ways life would get weird on a flat Earth"
- "4 bizarre Stephen Hawking theories that turned out to be right (and 6 we're not sure about)"
- "China is gearing up to activate the world's first 'clean' commercial nuclear reactor"
- The first two are obvious clickbait (and not science at all). The third one is full of factual errors. I would say that the quality of this website is pretty bad if you're looking for science news.
--Echawkes (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Live science 102.80.104.41 (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]