On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > But, as Laura comments, there may be a lot of citations clustered in a > small part of the article, but few elsewhere. Also, the number of sources > is relevant – I can cite the same source 1000 times in one article and > that’s probably not quality either. I’d be inclined to reduce the influence > of both multiple citations at the same point of the text (or very close in > the text) as well as repeated citations to the same source. It’s not that > either is bad but there should be some limit to how much they influence any > conclusions. > > > The issue of volume of citations can also be subject specific. An article about Sudan women's national football team, which is a Good Article, has 26 total citations. Topically, this makes a lot of sense. Sioma, an article about a town in Zambia, has 23 citations and is a Start. I would expect an article about a town to potentially have more sources. There more well known a topic is, the more page views, it seems a sliding scale for sources should be used if trying to assess relative quality. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
