On 5/17/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The level is not a problem. I tend to agree that there's no such thing
as overciting, though I'm sure someone will eventually WP:POINT out an
exception to that rule. As you say, the problem is more with the
nature of the sources used. Much of the article is currently sourced
to a web site called "Megalithic Walks" which is only attributed to
"Graham and Angela" and which does not, itself, cite sources.
However, citing such amateur websites is perfectly fine -- it's
basically one step above "citation needed" and tells other editors
that it would be nice to have a more authoritative source for the
claim (and also that it's OK to remove it if it is in dispute).
Yes, I feel that for a reader, knowing that the information that a given
stone circle is 23 metres wide came from an amateur website is a hell of a
lot more useful than just being told "this stone circle is 23 metres wide".
However I still have two unresolved problems:
a) How to elegantly express the fact that two different sources have
contradicting accounts. Do I write: This stone circle is 23  or 28 
metres wide, and ... or do I actually have to incorporate the metadata about
the sources into the body: The size of the stone circle is reported
differently in different accounts, as being either 23  or 28 
b) How to elegantly express the fact that I simply don't know something
which is pertinent. Wikipedia does not have a narrator's voice. A newspaper
might say "The Age was unable to determine the man's name", and a book or
blog might simply use "I". I feel it's misleading to say "The origins
rock are unknown" when surely someone *does* know them - but we (I) don't.