Content deleted Content added
→Re-evaluating refs in lead: Why I removed another ref in lead |
|||
Line 389:
The ref at the end of the first paragraph is also a candidate for removal since it doesn't seem controversial. There's one ref in the 3rd paragraph. I'm leaning towards keeping it since it's a bit surprising, not commonly known, and did not appear in the literature until 1976. Anyone have thoughts about these two refs or about removing other refs or adding refs in the lead? Thanks, --[[User:RJGray|RJGray]] ([[User talk:RJGray|talk]]) 19:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
:My general feeling is that we need references in the lead either for direct quotes or when the lead says something that is not repeated in more depth later. So for instance the quote "Cantor's revolutionary discovery" in the lead needs a reference, but the last sentence of the first paragraph (the claim about what the title refers to) doesn't, because it is expanded in more detail in the "influence of Weierstrass and Kronecker" section. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you David for your guidance on refs in the lead. I've removed the ref in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I've also re-evaluated the lone reference in the 3rd paragraph. My reasons for keeping it don't fit into your general feeling about refs in the lead since what it refers to is also covered in detail in the "influence of Weierstrass and Kronecker" section. My reasons for keeping it are also not mentioned in [[WP:LEAD#Citations]]. So I'm planning to remove this ref in a few days unless someone comes up with a good reason for it. After it's removed, all the refs in the lead will be unique to the lead. --[[User:RJGray|RJGray]] ([[User talk:RJGray|talk]]) 15:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
| |||