Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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)
I guess we disagree on this.
*in the present case there doesn't seem to be a danger of creating a "giant link section."
*generally I believe that it is rather routine to include notes and references sections, i.e. see recent featured articles: ] and ] or for that matter my favorite model: ]
Revision as of 09:33, 16 April 2009
User talk:Evenfiel: Difference between revisions
Add topic