Talk:A priori and a posteriori
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Otr500 in topic External links
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A priori and a posteriori article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article issues and classification
edit- Article has failed the B-class criteria since 2014 and echoed again in 2022. Reassess article. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
External links
edit- More than one instance of "A priori and a posteriori" in the "External links" will likely prove redundancy.
- There are six entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number to push for adding links and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. Another problem is adding links just to add them if they do not follow the content guideline.
- 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) 15:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)