-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mak wrote:
I've just attempted to explain why having inline citations can be misleading. If a fact is widely agreed on, and you ascribe it to a single source or author, it makes it seem as though that person is the sole proponent of that idea, when in fact pretty much everyone in the field is in agreement.
If you look at [[Dido and Aeneas]] you will see that it does cite it's sources. In the oh-so-cryptically named "References" section. It does not have inline citations because when I wrote the majority of the article, I was 1) brand new 2) inline citations had not become all the rage 3) *it doesn't contain controversial assertions. No one has challenged a single fact in the article. If you know anything about either the work or Purcell or English Baroque music, you probably won't challenge any of the article's assertions because they are *not* controversial.
Would it be all that hard to provide a specific page reference as a footnote. e.g. (hypothetical example) <ref>See, for example, J. Doe /Origins of Somethingorother/ p.29, J. Bloggs /Somethingorother explained p.60</ref>.</ref>? And there is no need to cite a source after every fact - after every paragraph or subtopic would be fine. But no citations is unlikely to result in a successful GA review, at least unless/until the proposed changes to the GA criteria are accepted.
Cynical
David Russell