Talk:Critical discourse analysis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
PrimeBOT (talk | contribs)
m top: Task 24: template substitution following a TFD
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Sociology}}, {{WikiProject Philosophy}}, {{WikiProject Linguistics}}, {{WikiProject Writing}}.
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=C|importance=Low|social=yes|continental=yes}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|class=C|importance=High|applied=Yes|applied-importance=}}
{{WikiProject Writing |class=C |importance=Mid}}
}}
{{archives|search=yes}}
Line 41:
 
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 16:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 
== Notable academics ==
 
I presume that the listed academics with Wikipedia pages (in English or other languages) are [[WP:Notable]]. For other scholars listed, maybe there could be some external standard. I've checked Web of Science for [[h-index]] and number of publications for the following scholars.
* Michał Krzyżanowski h-index 23, total publications 58
* John E. Richardson h-index 13, total 126 (also an editor of ''[[Critical Discourse Studies]]'', I think)
* Phil Graham h-index 17, total 89
* Hilary Janks h-index 10, total 39
* Christopher Hart h-index 12, total 43
* William Feighery h-index 5, total 9
Web of Science has somewhat spotty coverage of social sciences, though (for comparison, Norman Fairclough has an h-index of 13 and 29 publications in WoS; Ruth Wodak has 23 and 88), so there may be a better standard. Google Scholar? Something else?
[[User:Cnilep|Cnilep]] ([[User talk:Cnilep|talk]]) 01:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)