Talk:Tony Blair/Bibliography: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Stephen Ewen (Wow...what a fantastic starting point for in-depth research this is.) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Wow, when one sees a Bibiography subpage constructed--the value is clearly outstanding. What a fantastic starting point for in-depth research this is. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 00:38, 12 August 2007 (CDT) | Wow, when one sees a Bibiography subpage constructed--the value is clearly outstanding. What a fantastic starting point for in-depth research this is. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 00:38, 12 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
Yes, I had the same thought. An annotated bibliography, particularly when it's online and has hyperlinks to things like online copies and reviews, is a great research tool. This isn't exactly news, but it does bring home the value of what we're doing. | |||
I predict we will have similar reactions to fully fleshed out "Related Articles" pages. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:42, 12 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 00:42, 12 August 2007
Wow, when one sees a Bibiography subpage constructed--the value is clearly outstanding. What a fantastic starting point for in-depth research this is. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:38, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I had the same thought. An annotated bibliography, particularly when it's online and has hyperlinks to things like online copies and reviews, is a great research tool. This isn't exactly news, but it does bring home the value of what we're doing.
I predict we will have similar reactions to fully fleshed out "Related Articles" pages. --Larry Sanger 01:42, 12 August 2007 (CDT)