have to specify exactly which source each statement comes
from (although it is preferred where possible). Just listing the
references at the end of the article would be acceptable.
Wouldn't work. I know that stuff is in books be remembering which
childrens book on canals (most stuff above that level will assume you
know it and start talking about specific cases) I originaly ran across
it. Yes the section could be refed but you would better spending your
time sorting out the lack of a mention of the indian canals and the
failure to mention the ship canal building boom.
I don't understand. I'm talking about the details of where to mention
the sources, and you're responding with what appears to be (you seem
to have missed the end of the second sentence off in addition to some
typos, so I'm guessing at what you're trying to say) an argument about
not needing to cite common knowledge, which is another debate
entirely. When making a counter argument, please make sure it is
actually related to the original argument.