On 23/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Come to think of it, breaking it down by source area might be more useful - {{newspaper cite needed}}; {{journal cite needed}}?
Sounds like an open invitation to the querulous. "You have a source but I'm going to be arsey about it and say so obnoxiously in the article text."
Mmm, true. On the other hand, {{news cite needed}} would probably be a practical addition to any topic-based system - "In 1998, it was reported that the company was facing bankruptcy.{{fact}}".
I was thinking more broken into the same sort of categories as stub sorting. What triggered this thought this time around was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupus_vulgaris - there's a "[citation needed]" there which an expert could probably fill in off the top of their head, but there's no mechanism by which the expert would be directed to it.
Sourced and cited - though here I wonder if {{etymology cite needed}} would have been more efficient than {{medicine cite needed}} ;-)