Talk:The Review of Reviews
Add topicLatest comment: 3 years ago by Otr500 in topic External links
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
end date
[edit]This article says that the American edition lasted until 1937; but our article on The Literary Digest said that it merged into the Review of Reviews in 1938, which failed "soon after". So one of these two dates is wrong. --Delirium (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
External links
[edit]- This is not the most egregious of sections against policies and guidelines but not far off. It is certainly on the list of What Wikipedia is not.
- There are sixty-six entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
- ELpoints #3) states:
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
- LINKFARM states:
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
- WP:ELMIN:
Minimize the number of links
. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)