Wikipedia talk:Citation underkill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Relevant guideline

Not sure where this should be mentioned ....WP:LISTVERIFY.--Moxy (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Community consensus

Hi User:QuackGuru. I see that you have created your own essay in Wikipedia namespace. I, for one, have concerns that the content of this essay as it exists at the moment does not reflect the community consensus as to how Wikipedia polices should be applied. As per WP:POLICIES, essay pages that "are found to contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace". Therefore, I believe an MfD is appropriate to test if the views contained in the essay are indeed shared in the community, and if not then it should be placed in your namespace where you can still refer to it if required. I'm aware that you have only recently created it and there may be further development, so thought I'd ask you a few questions as to whether certain aspects are likely to change in near future.

• Will the essay continue to maintain that citing well-known information, such as that the sky is blue or that the normal human hand contains four fingers and a thumb, regardless of context is always of benefit to the reader?
• Will the essay continue to maintain that editors are required to include a citation for every recurrence of material?
• Will the essay continue to maintain that editors are required to provide a citation for each sentence?

Please note that obviously any other editors who are aware of this article and intend to improve it (and improvements are required in my opinion) are welcome to comment as well, but if the primary author holds these views does not intend to change, then I believe that the community should be approached to see if these views are indeed widespread and beneficial to the encyclopedia, and if not to move it to namespace. My availability is somewhat limited for the next few weeks, so dependent on the responses given here, obviously anyone else is welcome to initiate the MfD process should they wish to. Scribolt (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a few comments on the above... We need to remember that essays are opinions... and opinions do not need to be shared by the majority. Minority opinions are allowed. The question is whether an essay reflecting a minority opinion belongs in mainspace or in userspace (per WP:USERESSAY).

Personally, I advocate for a reasonable standard... I think a minority opinion essay should remain in mainspace as long as it is supported by a fairly large minority (I would call this a "minority consensus"). If we go with my standard... what we would need to establish is whether this essay reflects such a "fairly large" minority, or is simply the view of a small group of editors (or even the view of one single editor). I honestly have no idea how supported this essay will be... and so I support the idea of fining out, by holding an MfD. I also support giving QuackGuru (and anyone else who supports this essay) a reasonable amount of time to work on it before it is tested at MfD. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think the bar is set pretty low for namespace essays, and quite rightly. An MfD shouldn't remove it from namespace unless there's consensus that it's either harmful or that only a tiny minority agree with it and therefore is not useful. I personally believe that this essay as written is both incorrect, harmful and not reflective of what more than a tiny minority think. This opinion of mine would be tested at an MfD when it occurs. The reason why I separated out those points because if the supporters of this essay indicate that they are prepared to moderate and more importantly add context to the existing essay, then my opinion might change. At the moment it reads like a somewhat spiteful refutation of Overkill, and quotes requirements that do not appear to exist in policy. More time can and will be given, but I wanted to indicate my personal concerns at an early stage. Scribolt (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRJDEL--Moxy (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Comic Book Rebels citation: page range vs single pages

In the example using "Comic Book Rebels," I would cite a page number for each quotation, rather than a page range in a repeated citation. This would make the quotations easier to verify. Especially when someone is being quoted, it can be helpful to be as specific as possible. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Examples aren't representative

The example with 20+ references about electronic cigarettes seems a little unusual in my book. I think we'd be served better by using an example with say 4-5 different sources. The solution for that example is probably to have a note at the end of the sentence including all 20 references, and which specific claim each reference supports. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I.e. I would do like this:

Aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silicate, silver, strontium, tin, titanium, zinc, and zirconium have been found in the electronic cigarette aerosol.^[1]

Notes

^ Aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silicate, silver, strontium, tin, titanium, zinc, zirconium

References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

This seems to be unnecessary repetition, and it requires an extra step for any person wanting to review the source of a specific claim. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well in that case I propose the following shortened version:

At least 17 different metals, including: the heavy metal lead; and poisonous oxide of aluminum have been found in electronic cigarette aerosol.^[2]

Using extreme examples or contentious topics in our examples is not helpful overall (even if I know this may not have been intentional, simply a result of in-depth knowledge of those articles by the original author). Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

References

A better example from Malaria is:

The signs and symptoms of malaria typically begin 8–25 days following infection; however, symptoms may occur later in those who have taken antimalarial medications as prevention. Initial manifestations of the disease—common to all malaria species—are similar to flu-like symptoms, and can resemble other conditions such as sepsis, gastroenteritis, and viral diseases. The presentation may include headache, fever, shivering, joint pain, vomiting, hemolytic anemia, jaundice, hemoglobin in the urine, retinal damage, and convulsions.

References

Each color here indicates a different source. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The color variations are good for the Citation confusion section. It would be a distraction if the color variations were added to another section. The Needed repetition and citation placement section has two related examples. Using both a simple example and an extreme example is better than just example. Three examples might be too much. For now there are two examples for most sections. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Avoiding full examples in Wiki-code

I removed a full example that was written with code-tags in markup. It has very low readability. Carl Fredrik ^talk 05:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The full example below:

This is not the best practice, and is underkill:

In the first collected volume, Marder explains that his work is "about the affinity of life," wherein the characters "understand that ultimately they depend on each other for survival." Wiater and Bissette see this relationship as a wider metaphor for the interdependancy of the comics industry. Indeed, addressing the potential underlying complexity, Marder suggests that "it's harder to describe it than it is to read it." He also calls it "an ecological romance... a self-contained fairy tale about a group of beings who live in the center of their perfect world [and are] obsessed with maintaining its food chain," a self-described "really low concept!" Equally, he says, "the reader has to invest a certain amount of mental energy to follow the book," which includes "maps and a rather long glossary." Despite these potentially conflicting comments, Wiater and Bissette reiterate that "there is no simpler or more iconographic comic book in existence."<ref name=WiaterBissette1993>{{cite book|author1=Stan Wiater|author2=[[Stephen R. Bissette|Stephen Bissette]]|title=Comic book rebels: conversations with the creators of the new comics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E6MNAQAAMAAJ|date=June 1993|publisher=Donald I. Fine, Inc.|isbn=978-1-55611-355-0|pages=17–27|chapter=2. Larry Marder: Building Bridges}}</ref>

This is correct:

In the first collected volume, Marder explains that his work is "about the affinity of life," wherein the characters "understand that ultimately they depend on each other for survival."<ref name=WiaterBissette1993/> Wiater and Bissette see this relationship as a wider metaphor for the interdependancy of the comics industry.<ref name=WiaterBissette1993/> Indeed, addressing the potential underlying complexity, Marder suggests that "it's harder to describe it than it is to read it."<ref name=WiaterBissette1993/> He also calls it "an ecological romance... a self-contained fairy tale about a group of beings who live in the center of their perfect world [and are] obsessed with maintaining its food chain," a self-described "really low concept!"<ref name=WiaterBissette1993/> Equally, he says, "the reader has to invest a certain amount of mental energy to follow the book," which includes "maps and a rather long glossary."<ref name=WiaterBissette1993/> Despite these potentially conflicting comments, Wiater and Bissette reiterate that "there is no simpler or more iconographic comic book in existence."<ref name=WiaterBissette1993>{{cite book|author1=Stan Wiater|author2=[[Stephen R. Bissette|Stephen Bissette]]|title=Comic book rebels: conversations with the creators of the new comics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E6MNAQAAMAAJ|date=June 1993|publisher=Donald I. Fine, Inc.|isbn=978-1-55611-355-0|pages=17–27|chapter=2. Larry Marder: Building Bridges}}</ref>

Here is the full example above. It was used as a comparison to the same example in Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Needless repetition. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

See Wikipedia:Citation overkill (contrary opinions). What is the benefit? It should be nominated for deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And what is the harm? Carl Fredrik ^talk 05:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Pointless and no potential for use. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

And the harm of this is? Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Shortcut overkill?

—PaleoNeonate - 03:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly a sign of a not very well chosen title if so many ways to shortcut to it are needed. I suggest leaving out most of them and leaving the addition of shortcuts to people who find them actually useful. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are the same number as for WP:OVERKILL, so slightly ironic. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Shortcuts are good for visibility — and don't necessarily have much to do with the title. Carl Fredrik ^talk 05:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There were too many shortcuts. It was overdoing it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"A high level of article content"

Quack... you have recently added this phrase to several sections of the essay... but I am not sure what it refers to. Does it refer to the amount of content, the quality of content, or something else? Blueboar (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Welcome-citation

Not sure we should be spamming new editors with Template:Welcome-citation that links here over our guidelines. Was going to ask for deletion as misleading....but perhaps we should just fix the links.--Moxy (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It links to Wikipedia:Five pillars among other links. Nothing needs fixing. QuackGuru (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Move talk to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Template:Welcome-citation..--Moxy (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Template for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 24#Template:Welcome-citationunderkill. QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Winding down the hyperbole

This essay may gain more traction if it appears less WP:POINTY. I appreciate that you have a point, but going over the top is not often a good way to persuade people that you should be taken seriously. You risk a failure to communicate. Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I've done some work to tone this down and to clarify what is meant. However, we really need to get rid of all the e-cig examples — they're not doing anyone any favors. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking much better and less dictatorial, nice work! I feel as if I can actually get on board with parts of it now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The e-cig examples are very helpful, especially the "Changing single words or certain phrases" and the "Controversial claims" examples. QuackGuru (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but having each and every example be about the same thing makes the piece look like something written by someone with an agenda. This is about so much more than e-cigs, and I would hope that we could get rid of a few of those examples and have equally valid examples from other articles, and even other fields outside of medicine. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed one. QuackGuru (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

In the cause of "winding down the hyperbole," this is becoming a characterless essay by committee. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How is this a problem? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no problem, only solutions. Quack's MfD has been wonderfully successful in generating interest. Wikipedia:Time management. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we need to wind up the hyperbole because it is not hyperbole. See "Merging a sentence without a citation with a sentence that does have a citation can render the newly formed sentence, as partially failed verification. This can occur when a sentence was added into a paragraph without a citation."

One editor added content that was unsourced. Then another editor merged that content with another sentence. Now the newly formed sentence failed verification. This is citation craziness. QuackGuru (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments as requested

I took another look and noticed a couple of items that I think can be improved.

1. The headings for the coloured text examples: Appropriate, Problematic and Essentially useless express your opinion on the citation style without clarifying why you have that opinion. It is necessary to read through the text to get the picture. As a means of communication this is not effective and is an example of the problem illustrated by the third case. Essentially useless is an overstatement, as the presence of the refs at the end of the paragraph is much better than none at all, as they make it possible, though unneccesarily tedious to verify. Most useful, Less useful and Least useful are more accurate descriptions. Useless would be the uncited example which you have not given.
2. The virus comment in the caption for the malarial parasite image is confusing. It may be explained somewhere in the text, but if so I missed it. I have no idea what point you are trying to illustrate with it.
3. I agree with the point made by Carl Fredrik above about too many e-cigs examples. Try to avoid using more than one example from any specific article. If the problem is as widespread as you claim, it should be possible to have an equivalently wide range of examples. It would make the essay seem less pointy, therefore more credible to the neutral reader.
4. Bear in mind that we are absolutely required to avoid plagiarism, and that the standards for this on Wikipedia are high. This requires us to use our own words to express the information we get from the reference. it is not always possible for everyone to convey exactly the same meaning in different words in all cases. There is inevitably some drift.
5. You could mention {{rp}} as an alternative page reference system for people who do not want to take the trouble to use {{sfn}}. It takes more space, and is less visually pleasing, but someone more fussy can reformat later and the information is there, which is the point of the argument.

More when I see it. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Broadening the examples beyond science

I notice that all of the examples are from science related articles. (This is understandable - given that this is the subject area that QuackGuru is most involved in, so that's where he has come across the problem he is trying to address.) Unfortunately, this may give the impression that citation underkill is only problematic in science articles. I am assuming that this is not the case (or is it? If so... that should be noted). In any case, the essay would benefit from examples of citation underkill in other fields. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Certainly any controversial topic (e.g., politics), and any article where notability has been disputed. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

One finds examples where one works (or not). Editors in other fields can bring their examples here. A wider range of examples would be more convincing that this is a widespread problem. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Some"

What definition of "some" are you using? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Editability of articles

Improving ease of editing

There are various ways to improve the editability of articles. Adding extra spaces to the citations decreases the editability of the content because it is easier to spot where the citations are when they don't have spaces. This means it is harder to differentiate between the words and citations when both have spaces. Therefore, removing extra spaces inside the citations improves the ease of editing for articles. Reading up on core content policies will make it easier to edit and improve article content.

Main citation spacing correctly (without extra spaces)

​​<ref name=Grana2014>{{cite journal|last=Grana|first=R|author2=Benowitz, N|author3=Glantz, SA|title=E-cigarettes: a scientific review.|journal=Circulation|date=13 May 2014|volume=129|issue=19|pages=1972–86|doi=10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667|pmc=4018182|pmid=24821826}}</ref>

Main citation spacing incorrectly (with unnecessary spaces)

​​<ref name=Grana2014>{{cite journal |last=Grana |first=R |author2=Benowitz, N |author3=Glantz, SA |title=E-cigarettes: a scientific review. |journal=Circulation |date=13 May 2014 |volume=129 |issue=19 |pages=1972–86 |doi=10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667 |pmc=4018182 |pmid=24821826 }}</ref>

Short citation correctly (without extra space and without quote marks)

​​<ref name=Grana2014/>

Short citation incorrectly (with unnecessary space)

​​<ref name=Grana2014/ >

Short citation incorrectly (with unnecessary quote marks)

​​<ref name="Grana2014"/>

Is there a place for any of the sentences or content? QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I understand the issue you are trying to address ... but I don't think it is really connected to the concept of "citation underkill", and so probably belongs in a separate essay. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Getting off topic

This essay is beginning to wander off topic... I have to ask: what does the the new citeaccuracy section have to do with "citation underkill"? Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

See the following in the lede: "Without citations, it is difficult to know that material isn't just made up. It is critically important for an article to be verifiable, especially when sources disagree, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Changing single words can cause a statement that was sourced, to become a statement which fails verification. When no citation is nearby, this error risks being missed. By arguing that a source shouldn't be included, when it can be — we make it hard to verify our articles — putting their neutrality at risk and diminishing their encyclopedic value." This ties in citation craziness and confusion. A citation after a sentence does not lead to accurately cited content. Also see the following in the lede: "Maintaining article standards is possible by following core content policies." The lede and body match. Adding citations is important, but it is more important for the content to be accurate. By balancing WP:NPOV, V and OR, we reach WP:Citation balancekill. We don't need another essay for only one section. We can cover it here. Adding citations is only the first step. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh... I think a typical reader will find the connection between "citeaccuracy" and "citation underkill" too tenuous to fully understand what the two have in common. Including the accuracy section detracts from the primary point of the essay and so including it will make the essay less effective. But... it's your baby, so include what you want. Just wanted to give my 2 cents worth. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I clarified the wording to make the connection clearer. See "Adding inline citations to verify content is important, but it is even more important for the content to be neutrally written." Including the balancekill section strengthens the main point of this essay and it makes it more effective. It accomplishes this by tying together the 3 core content policies. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar, and in fact with most of the points in the text as well. However, I think it should be split out into another essay. Trying to get this essay to cover everything inevitably means it won't cover anything very well. If we really need to we can summarize it, keeping only the section on why it matters when it comes to Citation underkill. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

First, it is on topic because it is intimately related. See the first sentence: "Wikipedia lives and dies by its sources; our material is required by the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy to be verifiable with reliable sources."

Second, Verifiability policy discusses a lot more than Verifiability. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability and other principles.

Third, summarising it here would dilute its meaning. We can't expect people to read yet another essay when most people don't know about this essay. Citation underkill is not linked from the Wikipedia:Verifiability#See also section to here. Trying to get one linked at Verifiability policy is going to be tough enough for a new baby. Linking two essays by the same author would be overkill. It would also be kind of a boring essay just to explain where to put citations. The essay is like having two hearts connected together. They are interconnected. I'm not interested in the bastardization of this essay. QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that more readers might actually pay attention to this essay (and link to it) if it had a more defined focus. As it currently is, we might as well rename it: WP:Hodgepodge of issues related to citing sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

By interconnecting citation placement with citation accuracy we are editing from a position of strength by interlocking our core policies. We are strengthening our central focus by following core content policies. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree fully with Blueboar. We are more likely to positively influence editors if we present a limited number of issues. As for linking from WP:Verifiability — that will only happen if this essay gets some traction and a sizable following. WP:Hodgepodge of issues related to citing sources will not get such a following. And may I remind you QuackGuru that you are not the sole author of this essay, and if you really want to be the sole author then you can recreate a copy in your userspace. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Citation balancekill" is not a hodgepodge of issues related to citing sources. It is a core issue regarding placing a citation where it verifies a claim while simultaneously summarizing the source accurately. This shows they are interlinked together. It does say "...it is even more important for the content to be neutrally written." This part of the sentence shows this section is a core part of this essay. We don't remove the beating heart from this essay because of what others may or may not think of it in the future. Linking two separate essays by the same author will not be allowed at WP:Verifiability and it does not make sense to create another essay where even fewer editors will read it. "Citation balancekill" makes sense here where it explains its purpose, by directly interlocking its meaning with citation underkill. Changing the original intent of this essay is usually not a good idea. We should not get rid of part of its central core message. QuackGuru (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

In other words... You want the essay to say what you want it to say, and are not really interested in what others think. Got it. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The question, what does the citeaccuracy section have to do with citation underkill?, was directly answered repeatedly. QuackGuru (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I agree with you on many things QuackGuru — you're very far from reality here. Linking any essay by any single author will never happen on WP:Verifiability — and you have not written this essay on your own. I've put considerable effort into it and I hope you realize that it will never be linked if you do not accept some critique and help make it a collaborative product.

The absolute best you can hope for is for this essay to be polished for a month or so longer, then be linked, and then this essay can link to WP:CITATIONBALANCEor w/e. Nothing you've added under that section is in any way new — and as I see it everything is explained at WP:WEASEL already.

If you really insist on keeping the section, make it into 1 paragraph and explain that you can go to WP:WEASEL for more information.

As it stands now, even I can not support linking to this essay from WP:Verifiability. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It is explaining things in a different way. No editor can go to WP:WEASEL for information that is not in WP:WEASEL. It is a separate matter if editors disagree with what it is saying. It now says "Placing a citation after each idea or concept does not guarantee the content is verifiable. The verifiability of the content depends heavily on whether the content is in actuality verified to the source placed after each idea or concept. Furthermore, placing an inline citation where it verifies the content is important, but it is equally or even more important for the content to be neutrally written." This content is obviously related to this essay. You agree to keeping the section, if I make it shorter and delete content you don't like? QuackGuru (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It presents points central to WP:Verifiability, but not to this essay. I like and agree with most of the points, they just don't fit here. A shortened version that only explains what is unique and not stated at WP:Verifiability & WP:WEASEL may be acceptable, but then again I'm probably the one who agrees with you the most — and if you want it linked, we're going to need to keep it on point. Others may be far less accepting, and our best shot at convincing others that this essay is worth being linked is to have a single message and not wander around everywhere. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't change this essay for the sole benefit of linking it in a policy page. We should not try to convincing others that this essay is worth being linked in WP:Verifiability by deleting things they may not like. It explains things directly related to both WP:Verifiability and this essay. Having a stronger, more purposeful message is better than a limited one. QuackGuru (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Which section are we discussing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The most crucial issues are in the essay, including the edit by the IP that indirectly led to the creation of this essay. See Wikipedia:Citation underkill#endnote 5. I recently changed the section name. It now is Wikipedia:Citation underkill#Citation balancekill. It is the backbone of this essay. Explaining to editors to place citations where they verify each idea or concept is not the best practice. It is far better to also explain there is a different way to add content along with a source. Following core content polices is very important and the examples in the section are critical to understanding how this is accomplished. Policy and guideline pages do not cover this like this essay. No essay on Wikipedia covers this. After reading this essay, an editor will have a new understanding of how to utilize all three core content policies. The end result can be a more neutral article. This is the great benefit with keeping this section, by interconnecting policies in a unique way. The opening sentence for that section reading "Placing a citation after each idea or concept does not guarantee the content is verifiable." sets the stage for what is to follow. I'm sure most editors will find the section fascinating and thought provoking. Before it was about building an encyclopedia by adding more and more content. We are past the days of just referencing every sentence. We can emphasize quality over quantity. This section accomplishes these goals. I know it is a very high standard. But editors can strive to reach that standard. QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It is also essential that editors paraphrase and thus words not found in the sources must be used even if they change the meaning slightly. Changing syntax and rearranging ideas is also an important part of paraphrasing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I added "This means we paraphrase and thus words not found in the sources can be used even if they are not the exact same meaning. Changing the wording and rearranging ideas is also an important part of paraphrasing." QuackGuru (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Citation accuracy is not the same thing as citation underkill, but they are related, I'd say pretty closely related, and thus not off topic. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)