| Revision as of 19:46, 1 August 2008 editEvenfiel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,835 edits ← Blanked the page← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:46, 8 March 2009 edit undoJoel Mc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,260 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Les Bienveillantes == | |||
| You are right about the dead link to Quadrant. I was going to correct it and was in a rush. Sorry. They are organizing their archives and this issue is not online yet. I will watch for it. However, I do think that it is important to have a separate section for Reviews (with links if possible). I feel that we are often writing for different audiences: there will be some who come to the article and want to know how it has been reviewed without having to plow through the footnotes. There will be others who read the whole article. On the whole, I feel that it is useful to have a separate section of references in most articles which lists at least all of the literature that is cited in the the footnotes. --] (]) 11:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:46, 8 March 2009
Les Bienveillantes
You are right about the dead link to Quadrant. I was going to correct it and was in a rush. Sorry. They are organizing their archives and this issue is not online yet. I will watch for it. However, I do think that it is important to have a separate section for Reviews (with links if possible). I feel that we are often writing for different audiences: there will be some who come to the article and want to know how it has been reviewed without having to plow through the footnotes. There will be others who read the whole article. On the whole, I feel that it is useful to have a separate section of references in most articles which lists at least all of the literature that is cited in the the footnotes. --Joel Mc (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)