Content deleted Content added
Sapphorain (talk | contribs) |
→Too much unsourced text: Reply |
||
Line 110:
::{{ping|Sapphorain}} Greetings! When you say "all are easily verifiable", do you mean that the reader should follow links to other articles to find citations that support statements made in the [[Arithmetic function|Arithmetic Function]] article? An example would help. I am not trying to refute you. I just want to learn more about standards for verifiability. Cordially, [[User:BuzzWeiser196|BuzzWeiser196]] ([[User talk:BuzzWeiser196|talk]]) 10:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
: I mean by that that the material in the sections you list is very elementary and can be found in the various textbooks given as general references in the article: for instance Apostol’s introduction, the Hardy and Wright, the Landau, the Niven-Zuckerman-Herbert, the Bateman-Diamond. All the items in these sections are thus easily ''verifiable'' and don’t ''require'' each time a footnote citing a title and a page. But of course you are welcome to insert such footnotes if you feel like it. --[[User:Sapphorain|Sapphorain]] ([[User talk:Sapphorain|talk]]) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
::@Sapphorain: Now I understand. After reading [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], it seems that this article's "Further Reading" and "External Links" are what are termed "general references...that are usually found in underdeveloped articles." This article is far from underdeveloped. It's quite learned, and would benefit greatly from inline citations, which Wikipedia favors in a case like this. I wish I could help you with that task, but I don't have enough math training to take it on. My best to you! [[User:BuzzWeiser196|BuzzWeiser196]] ([[User talk:BuzzWeiser196|talk]]) 19:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||