" 

 == Serious Concerns About the Use of Sources == 

 Assuming this article will survive the current AfD, then serious scrutiny must be given to the use of all the sources Warden has added in his attempt to expand this page from a dictionary definition into a full article after he had the speedy delete reversed. The most conspicuously troubling is this verbage of Warden's: 
 :""In selecting candidates for the NASA's scientist-astronaut program, the National Academy of Sciences said that perspicacity was the most important quality required(footnote)"" 
 :Indented line 
 This is a distortion of the source. The source is one of the light, short general interest pieces Science publishes in its first few pages, before the peer-reviewed articles. It is dated October 7, 1966. The article never says that perspicacity was the most important quality required. The article quotes a recruitment brochure that uses the word ""perspicacity."" To further show how dated this source is, the article states:  
 :""Women scientists are not ineligible, but, as one NAS panel member put it, they have a strike against them. An astronaut's training is long and costly, he observed, and there will be 'no time off for having babies.'"" 
 The training brochure's choice of the word ""perspicacity"" is likely nothing more than an artifact of the general writing style at the time, a style that also included phrases like ""vim and vigor"", even in cigarette ads. The words ""acumen"" or ""discernment"" might have just as easily been chosen by the copy writer, the article does nothing to establish ""perspicacity"" as a notable concept. It seems Warden is just seeking out examples where the word was used in a sentence to pad the article, and his misuse of the above source is very troubling.   "