User talk:Dbrowell: Difference between revisions
→About footnotes and references: new section |
response |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
In general it's unnecessary to provide a footnote for nearly every sentence of the article as it's done for [[SHSMD]]. Providing many footnotes from a few sources prevents the casual reader form easily ascertaining coverage of the topic, as you noticed it happened to me when I looked at the SHSMD article. It's easier to say, "according to its website ..." and list a number of facts about the organization. If the ''facts'' are contested (rather than notability), so you need to justify each, which does not seem to be the case here, then a better practice is to separate the footnotes from the list of references as detailed in [[WP:CITESHORT]].<br>Do not be overly concerned about other editor's focus on the SHSMD article, when plenty of worse articles exist. That inevitably happens here; see the picture below ;-) All the best, [[User:VasileGaburici|VG]] [[User_talk:VasileGaburici|☎]] 17:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)<br>[[Image:Size_of_English_Wikipedia_broken_down.png|this]] |
In general it's unnecessary to provide a footnote for nearly every sentence of the article as it's done for [[SHSMD]]. Providing many footnotes from a few sources prevents the casual reader form easily ascertaining coverage of the topic, as you noticed it happened to me when I looked at the SHSMD article. It's easier to say, "according to its website ..." and list a number of facts about the organization. If the ''facts'' are contested (rather than notability), so you need to justify each, which does not seem to be the case here, then a better practice is to separate the footnotes from the list of references as detailed in [[WP:CITESHORT]].<br>Do not be overly concerned about other editor's focus on the SHSMD article, when plenty of worse articles exist. That inevitably happens here; see the picture below ;-) All the best, [[User:VasileGaburici|VG]] [[User_talk:VasileGaburici|☎]] 17:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)<br>[[Image:Size_of_English_Wikipedia_broken_down.png|this]] |
||
::Thanks- I appreciate your help, and candor. :) [[User:Dbrowell|Dbrowell]] ([[User talk:Dbrowell#top|talk]]) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 21:12, 21 September 2008
About footnotes and references
[edit]In general it's unnecessary to provide a footnote for nearly every sentence of the article as it's done for SHSMD. Providing many footnotes from a few sources prevents the casual reader form easily ascertaining coverage of the topic, as you noticed it happened to me when I looked at the SHSMD article. It's easier to say, "according to its website ..." and list a number of facts about the organization. If the facts are contested (rather than notability), so you need to justify each, which does not seem to be the case here, then a better practice is to separate the footnotes from the list of references as detailed in WP:CITESHORT.
Do not be overly concerned about other editor's focus on the SHSMD article, when plenty of worse articles exist. That inevitably happens here; see the picture below ;-) All the best, VG ☎ 17:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks- I appreciate your help, and candor. :) Dbrowell (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)