On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
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.
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]]: