Talk:Employers' Association of Greater Chicago

Cleanup? No
This article does not required cleanup. Some posters may not like that numerous references had to be used. Sadly, not all topics of importance have had books or scholarly articles written about them. This requires use of primary source documents, and that often means lengthy footnotes and references sections in order to meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Too bad if some users find that "pathological." Wikipedia calls it "verifiable."

And yes, it is necessary to have both a References and Notes section. This article uses inline citations. In WP:Citing Sources, whether using embedded links, Harvard referencing or footnotes, "A full citation is also required in a References section at the end of the article." Only in rare cases (such as when there are very few citations used, or when very few citations are used repeatedly), would a complete citation be used in a "Notes" section and a "References" section omitted. Some examples of this rare case are My Lucky Star (novel). WP:Citing Sources asks that contributors put additional print references in a "For Further Reading" section. Not all contributors do so, however. Some lump them in with the "References" section (especially if they are few in number). But the answer is: Yes, a References and Notes section are both needed, because one provides a short citation and the other a complete citation. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)