citation quality first thing i kiss the virtual feet of wikidemon thanks so very much for the wonderful cleanup of references yesterday second thing it seems like despite the heroic efforts citations keep getting new problems with new edits wb inserted a bunch of footnotes to support the claim that charges or convictions of acorn workers have occurred unfortunately these facts seem firstly motivated by wp truth and only secondarily by citations nonetheless i think something close to this number is probably right and i have nothing against it being in the article fwiw it was me who edited a few days ago to say at least i actually think the 'at least' is clarifying but i'm not going to fight about those two words at some length on this talk page wb provided lots of citations most of them from far right opinion publications rather than reliable sources in an edit today to the article a somewhat different set of citations were provided these seem rather sloppily collected the first one i looked at was the wonderfully wp rs nyt however once i read its body i saw that it had nothing relevant to the claim given in the sentence it was about ken blackwell's stricter enforcement of registration requirements in perhaps in excess of the new laws according to the article it was an interesting article just not one having anything to do with the sentence it was listed next to so i'll look through the rest of the added citations i urge other editors to also pay careful attention to the relevance and accuracy of citations added by a certain set of highly partisan editors there's wheat among the chaff but we obviously can't assume that just because something points to e g nyt it actually supports the point claimed talk