{{Infobox
| title = [[Scientific American]]
| image = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label1 = other names
| data1 = SA, SciAm
| label2 = source type
| data2 = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3 = publisher
| data3 = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5 = website
| data5 =
| label6 = classification
| data6 = [[File:Yes Check Circle.svg|20px]] 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.
== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
''Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.''
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 51#Scientific American (editorial) quote in RealClimate]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Scientific American]]
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:Scientific American, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Scientific American"
| ''[[Scientific American]]'' (''SA'', ''SciAm'')
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gr}}
| [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 51#Scientific American (editorial) quote in RealClimate|1]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Scientific American|2]]
| {{WP:RSPLAST|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.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|scientificamerican.com}}
|}