Talk:Justia
Add topicLatest comment: 7 years ago by SounderBruce in topic Notability
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
Notability
[edit]@SounderBruce: I understand why my recent edit does not meet WP:EP. However, I still think the content is notable and helpful. I usually contribute to Japanese Wikipedia, and refer to many American legal articles.. It is critical for me (and non-American readers in general) to distinguish which online legal sources are reliable or not. In that sense, the current version after reverting is more useless. You can edit and expand work by adding more suitable sources (i.e. not only Duke but also other recommendations or ranking surveys), but please do not revert it completely. Thank you in advance for your consideration. --ProfessorPine (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ProfessorPine: Adding four external links into the body of the article is a clear red flag that you should expect to be reverted 99 percent of the time. Your Duke "source" is just a general listing of sources that would be similar to those found at any library for basic research; it is neither an endorsement or disendorsement of a source's validity. You should refrain from adding "ranking" based lists as sources, as they are rarely reliable, researched, or accurate. SounderBruce 00:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)