On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Somewhat in response to Jimbo's post, I thought I'd offer an example of an article I've been working on, which has a massive number of footnotes. Pretty much every sentence in it I wrote with reference to one website or another, so I footnoted them all. Perhaps I suspect some of it is dodgy, so I prefer the source being explicitly stated.
Anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnac_stones
I would like to hear from people whether they consider this level of footnoting excessive, about right, deficient etc. I believe that this article may almost meet WP:V, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the sources are amateur websites. The sentence about Kermarquer is definitely Original Research, but I'm sure sooner or later I'll find a source to back me up.
Steve
You didn't cite in the intro the "exceptionally dense collection" claim. :)
But that's pretty good. Ideally, from my standpoint, those references in the bottom would contain not just the source information, but the actual quotes you were using, so one does not need to pore over the article/long research paper/whatever. For an example of what I sort of mean, see my [[Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity]]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Purity
~maru