This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Meshaka is the leading authority on exotic amphibians and reptiles in North America and has almost 200 publications. That makes him a pretty signficant herpetologist and scientist.
While making no comment on the subject's notability, "Leading authority" is according to a CNAH press release, of which Meshaka is a board member, and thus hardly a reliable, third-party source. Phrases like these, unless widely verified by reliable independent sources, are considered subjective peacock terms, and should not be used when more straightforward facts can more clearly inform. Neither should fluff like "has an extensive knowledge" or "known for his enthusiasm", which are equally true and trivial for any scientist in their field. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All academics publish. What counts is whether those publications made an impact and were noted. This has to be verifiable in reliable sources. The article contains several peacock terms that are either not sourced or sourced to book blurbs and such. If all this fluff is necessary to make this person appear notable, that actually makes me start doubting notability.. --Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
