Talk:Stephanie Peay

Sourcing
Self-published sources are not always inappropriate per WP:SPS, but this particular statement needs verification from somebody other than the subject herself: "Peay is a leading proponent of crayfish conservation and management in Britain and has produced much of the guidance on crayfish used by British ecologists and managers...." Who says she is leading? Who confirms that these ecologists and managers use her guidance? It may be true, but we need to know who says so to meet WP:V. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moonriddengirl this is the sort of constructive comment I value as a newbie. Citations already quoted in the rest of the sentence establish her as the author of English Nature (and others') published guidance. English Nature is the agency that sets UK guidance standards for ecologists, so by publishing her work under their aegis, it's them that validates her position. Agreed? Paulbryden (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would certainly validate that she has produced much of the guidance on crayfish used by British ecologists and managers, though it's probably best to word it more specifically: "She has produced this which serves as that....." (being completely unfamiliar with this field, I'm not entirely sure if you're saying that her texts are themselves used as guidance standards or if she is published by the same entity that publishes the guidance standards). As to her being a "leading proponent", that's a comparative view that suggests she is more prominent than other proponents of crayfish conservation and management. Again, it may be true, but we need to know who says so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's her specific texts that are used as guidance. I found a citation which describes her as a 'leading' expert and have added it . Thanks again.Paulbryden (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)