Talk:Eva Ekeblad

Review comments
Some suggestions for improvement as the article is expanded:

Espresso Addict 08:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox Scientist should be added
 * Photograph should be added from a source with a free license
 * Needs copy edit and wikification, with amalgamation of short paragraphs
 * Basic biographical information required, including place of birth, education, family details, place of residence etc
 * Article needs expanding and should emphasise reasons for notability of subject
 * After expansion, article should be divided into appropriate subheadings
 * Information on research should be expanded and references required
 * References should be expanded and preferably converted to inline format
 * External links present which could be used to expand article

In the introduction 'the latter' refers to using potatoes to produce alcohol - I don't think that resolved the good crisis - more likely  the former - ie flour from potatoes  Driverman dth (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct good to food Driverman dth (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Inline citations
IT IS AN BIOLOGICAL the near future (January 2014) I'll have a look at the mentioned (Swedish) sites and 'll add inline citations. Hopefully I'll be able to find everything (as 1 out of 3 sites had a dead link and I could not find it elsewhere on the web). Lisiduna (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend this link for expansion: Good luck!--Aciram (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Aciram! I found that link indeed on the Swedish wiki as well.Lisiduna (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done! :-) Lisiduna (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Placement of Google Doodle
The reference of the Google Doodle should be at the end of the first paragraph under "Scientific work". It reeks of "In popular culture" references that don't really contribute any significant information. A Google Doodle isn't exactly a high honor, anyhow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.192.30 (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Why would that be in her short intro at the top? It's one of the most significant things about her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.8.185.10 (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove the reference to the google doodle altogether. It is a non-event. It has nothing to do with her achievements and everything to do with pop-culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.63.111 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to leave it where it is for today and then remove it. It'll continue to be noted on the talk page.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  14:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Private life versus scientific contributions
Would it be possible to put the scientific contributions first? My bias is to feel that scientific contribution is what makes her more notable.

Curious to hear what others think. I haven't changed the page. Emjackson42 (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If other articles of scientists have the science section first, then why not? It is her relevance after all. As I mainly write of "Women in history" rather than scientists as such, I can't say I know what is correct, but I would not protest. --Aciram (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)