i'll have a think about this some of it amounts to hmm not a basic civility but an outright encouragement i'd like to take that up sometimes however a citation formatting decline is due to fundamental errors i think a comments with a lapse is better for the first type i'm still sticking with decline for the second type a third case is c errors concealing c errors often real c checking can't begin without appropriate citations perhaps this is a subset of the second kind of problem where citation formatting consistency causes a decline jargon is harder citations are a jargon driven field this is mostly where i'll be thinking about it in terms of actual line by line referencing the problem is that when i want to say burdett hateful for burdett example my hateful dreams about ducks in a compendium of duck hatred ed janice fowlloather london avianloathe press often the nominator turns up with janice fowlloather a compendium of duck hatred avian or some other partial attempt made worse through use of the citation templates without understanding the basic concept behind citation for verification if i quote it as fn it breaks rapidly if i quote it as fowlloather compendium it should actually change in paying off verbosity against wordlimits i suppose i need to shift back towards verbosity but this is an encyclopedia article you're quoting that makes it a tertiary source the only really reliable tertiary sources are ones aimed at an academic public written by academics the way we determine this is usually are do the articles contain a specific by line by an academic specialist in the field acting as an author of that specific article you quote are the articles signed your citation doesn't indicate this is an academic work by academics signed by academics it is an unsigned tertiary source please provide a full citation so we can judge it let me keep thinking