Talk:Eshkol-Wachman movement notation

Untitled
We were very happy to see that an effort was made to put EW on the wiki. It's about time. We want to amplify the material you submitted. So we would like to, for the benefit all wiki users, to combine our material with yours and we hope it meets with your approval.

References need work
This article has a bunch of text and then a bunch of citations, but that's not the Wikipedia style: there needs to be a way for the reader to link each specific claim in the article to each specific citation. Styles differ, but a common usage is footnotes with citation templates with footnotes; see WP:CITE.

Eubulides (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I took the first step with this change, which moved Teitelbaum & Teitelbaum 2008 from the "Publications" section to the new "References" section.
 * But then I tried to follow that citation, and found that (1) it pointed to a book not published yet, and (2) there was a better citation that supported the same claim. It's better because it is freely available on the web and published in a refereed journal. So I replaced it with the better citation. This time, I used a citation template.
 * Please see Autism for an example of how to format citations, and WP:MEDRS for more details on reliable sources.

Too many papers listed
There are far too many papers listed at the end in the further reading section. Either they need to be removed or go into a new "List of papers using Esckol-Wachman movement notation" article. Bellowhead678 (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)