 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 11 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shafferface.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keti.memushi.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Status edit
Was Mary Ann Mantell herself actually, strictly speaking, a palaeontologist? From the biography, it sounds more like she was an- evidently very skilled- lithographer, and her husband wrote on the subject of what she found- with some sources apparently suggesting HE found them, and it was just a story used to make the thing more interesting (if this is not the case, perhaps rewording reflecting the sources supporting her palaeontological work would be helpful?); given the definition of palaeontology in its Wikipedia article refers to "scientific study" of discoveries, and from the story given Mary Ann discovered them but didn't STUDY them, although her lithographs no doubt were of considerable value, can she really be called a "palaeontologist"? She found them, her husband looked at them and sent them on to Georges Cuvier via Charles Lyell, then Gideon Mantell wrote a paper and subsequent books which Mary Ann illustrated. Her scientific contribution here is, if the story provided is accurate, negligible. It sounds, as is all-too-frequent given the times, like she was a useful assistant to her husband; perhaps slight overzealousness leads her to being over-credited, however. The fact that she's in the categories "19th century English scientists" and "19th century British women scientists" despite apparently doing nothing at all scientific is a little strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.202.36 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)