This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
RfC: Does updated History section have enough references?
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that the section needs more secondary sources. AlbinoFerret 14:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Does updated History section (used to be called AMS Milestones) have enough references? Please answer with yes/no and the detailed why. I am looking for both opinion about quality (article content) and the number of references. The completed changes are described in the section above.Gpeja (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Looking at the series of citations and references, it does look fine to me. Damotclese (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment : if sheer number were any indication, yes. But the sources are severely lacking in the sense that most of them are primary. Even though some of them substantiate uncontroversial statements and information, as a whole the history section is about 65-80% referenced by primary sources. I recommend either trimming the section appropriately or finding better sources, which are available under a simple search online or in scholarly literature and print media. FoCuScontribs; talk to me! 00:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
FoCuS I agree with you that is why I started editing this article. My request for the comment is to get the other editors' opinion before I continue with my edits. Gpeja (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with user FoCuSandLeArN - there should be used much more references to scholarly literature --Fox1942 (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
No. More but better references are needed, per FoCuS' observations. -The Gnome (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Summoned by bot. I won't vote based on quantity, as number of references means very little. A solid secondary source is "worth" a dozen primary sources, especially on potentially controversial statements. In this case, as others have pointed out, the quantity isn't an issue but the quality is. Where possible, primary sources should be replaced with secondary sources. This doesn't really need an RfC, as it's already policy as per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. A more specific RfC or request for outside opinion would be far more useful after editors attempt to replace primary sources with secondary sources if there remains a large percentage of primary sources and the editors need assistance in determining how to best proceed. ~ RobTalk 00:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.