Wikipedia:Peer review/Scientific method/archive1
Could use a few fresh pairs of eyes. Has lots of great content, but a long lifetime of edit disputes. +sj+ 10:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It looks good overall. Perhaps the beginning could be a little more introductory in tone for the novice reader? Also, I may have missed it, but I didn't see any discussion in the article concerning the difference in the approaches for hard sciences (physics) vs. soft sciences (psychology), as well as field-observation sciences (archaeology or astronomy) vs. laboratory sciences (chemistry or materials). -- RJH 23:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)