Came so close to being a good article, but "disproven by XYZ" is not a valid reference. You have to actually reference the specific volumes, titles, page numbers, etc.
Came so close to being a good article, but "disproven by XYZ" is not a valid reference. You have to actually reference the specific volumes, titles, page numbers, etc.
They're links that lead to articles.
They're links that lead to articles.
Not when I read it. They go to other blogs and "news" sites. That's not a primary source, it's literally secondary sources.
Not when I read it. They go to other blogs and "news" sites. That's not a primary source, it's literally secondary sources.
(post is archived)