Talk:Robyn Arianrhod

Edit request
Specific text to be removed: Her treatment of Somerville has been criticized for ignoring Kathryn Neeley's earlier work on Somerville, and Grabiner (2013) also criticizes the book for its anachronistic treatment of lines of research that have been superseded by modern physics and its imprecise referencing to its source material

Reason for the change: deleting the lines referring to the critical reviews of Seduced by Logic - because this is such an unbalanced selection from all the reviews the book received, and it thereby contravenes the rules for Biographies of Living Persons.

References supporting change: See Wikipedia section on Biographies of living persons, writing style, balance.

Some urls https://www.amazon.com.au/Seduced-Logic-Somerville-Newtonian-Revolution/dp/0199931615

https://maa.org/press/maa-reviews/seduced-by-logic-milie-du-ch-telet-mary-somerville-and-the-newtonian-revolution

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261958167_Review_of_Seduced_by_Logic_Emilie_du_Chatelet_Mary_Somerville_and_the_Newtonian_Revolution_-_by_Robyn_Arianrhod

https://www.libraryjournal.com/review/seduced-by-logic-%C3%A9milie-du-ch%C3%A2telet-mary-somerville-and-the-newtonian-revolution

Mekanyst (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a more favorable quote from Grabiner's review (of which there were very few to choose from) in an attempt to restore some sort of WP:BALASP. Regards, Spintendo  03:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Spintendo beat me to it. I also wanted to add something positive from this review, including that the reviewer called it "an impressively far-reaching book" but the Readings site is a book store like Amazon, and it's a staff review, which calls into question the review's reliability and neutrality.  STEM info  (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)