This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Evenfiel (talk | contribs) at 19:07, 10 March 2009 (→Speedy deletion of Franco Fornari). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:07, 10 March 2009 by Evenfiel (talk | contribs) (→Speedy deletion of Franco Fornari)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
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: Greece Runestones and Harriet Tubman or for that matter my favorite model: Johannes Kepler