Wikipedia:Contort the citations



Write readable, informative prose, then ruthlessly chop, splice, and hammer the citation structure to fit. If the link between the verifying citations and the article prose is complex, put the complex explanations in the citations, rather than contorting the article prose. Make it easy to read, even if that makes it more awkward to structure the citations.

Sometimes the citations and text correspond conveniently, with each citation naturally supporting one sentence. Here, we discuss the more awkward cases.

The need for complex citations
Often, good writing may push an editor to combine facts from multiple sources in a single sentence or statement, or summarize excessively detailed facts, or make trivial calculations. For instance, an editor might write "She was involved in patent litigation with several competitors" and cite multiple sources detailing individual legal cases, or they might provide context for historic prices in terms of historic incomes or living costs. This is entirely permissible; editors are required to describe the facts in an original manner.

Calculations
Routine calculations can provide useful context. It is often good to describe the calculations in a ref statement, especially if it might be difficult to find the numbers in the sources; this makes it easier to verify. Example:

{{box| {{blockquote|text=Employees were paid 20 cents US per hour, on average.{{refn|employees were paid four cents US per widget, completed an average of 35 widgets a day, and worked for 7 hours a day. }}

Verifiability
It is important to build text–source integrity. That is, it should be easy for anyone reading the text to identify each source used to support each fact, and verify that it does so. This is the sole purpose of citations. Clarity does not require that you cite every sentence; several sentences may be supported by one tailing citation.

If the relationship between the cited facts and the source is complicated, then a detailed explanation should be included within the  statement (Template:refn may also be used for nesting refs). Readability is often improved by citation bundling, where multiple citations and explanatory text are included within a single ref template. For example, take this discussion of an imaginary playwright's development: {{box| {{blockquote|text=Haplesses' first two plays, Bicycle Ballet and Airship Acrobats, were modest critical and commercial successes. In contrast, Hapless's third play, Dragondrama, suffered a series of disasters.{{refn|name=catastrophic|The theater burned down, twice, and was destroyed for a third time in a gas main explosion on the date of its Grand Reopening, the theater company became involved in extensive litigation, eventually filing for bankruptcy, every member of the children's chorus came down with chickenpox just before the opening, several members of the production's firm of solicitors absconded to the East Indies with the meager take, leaving the cast and suppliers unpaid, and the production was forced to close within a week. }} The fourth play, The Calamity Theater, a light comedy, was widely seen as a fictionalized account of Hapless's experiences with Dragondrama. It marked a notable departure from Hapless's early style, which had been criticized as over-earnest. The Calamity Theater was praised for its subtle and thought-provoking humour,{{refn|formerly overearnest tone now improved, general praise: just praise: All three citations mention fictionalization.}} and Hapless was to use its gently ironic tone in all later works.

Obscure sourcing
Prefer obvious verification to obscure verification. A reference can explain why the sourcing supports a statement, where needed.

For instance, it is obvious that the statement "The president spoke to representatives in Nairobi" is supported by a source saying "The president travelled to Nairobi in order to talk to representatives there"; everyone knows that "talk"="spoke" in this context. If the synonyms in question are "Stefan–Boltzmann distribution", "Planck curve" and "blackbody radiation spectrum", it may be less obvious. Terms may need to be defined in the reference, where someone trying to verify the information might not otherwise understand (example).

Closeness to sources
Choosing how to express the facts is a matter of editorial judgement; one must to steer between Scylla and Charybdis. Excessively close paraphrases may be plagiarism and copyvio; they may also force an awkward, disconnected, factlist-like writing style. On the other hand, if you stray too far from what the sources say, you may unintentionally say something inaccurate, and something which is not in fact verified by the source. If another editor believes that a passage is factually inaccurate, they may challenge it. Adding short quotes in the references may help.