 (not part of original row) | |
| other names | SA, SciAm |
|---|---|
| source type | foobar (not part of original row) |
| publisher | Fooland (state-funded media) (not part of original row) |
| classification |  Usually reliable for typical purposes |
Scientific American is considered generally reliable for popular science content. Use WP:MEDPOP to determine whether the publication's medical coverage should be used.
Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.
(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)
| Source | Status (legend) |
Discussions | Use | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List | Last | Summary | |||
| Scientific American (SA, SciAm) |  |
1 2 | 
2020 |
Scientific American is considered generally reliable for popular science content. Use WP:MEDPOP to determine whether the publication's medical coverage should be used. | 1Â  Â  |