Talk:Brain fingerprinting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Corrected major inconsistencies and errors in citations and references

There were major inconsistencies in the citations and references. For several years, almost all citations in this article were parenthetical Harvard-style citations, with internal links, in the following format:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This was reported by Allen and Iacono ([[#AllenIacono1997|Allen and Iacono 1997]]).

== References ==

<references/>

<cite id=AllenIacono1997> Allen J.J.B. and Iacono W.G. (1997). "A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection." ''Psychophysiology 34:''234-240.</cite>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The above appeared in the article as follows:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This was reported by Allen and Iacono (Allen and Iacono 1997).

References

Allen J.J.B. and Iacono W.G. (1997). "A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection." Psychophysiology 34:234-240.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As time went on, more and more Citation Style 1 (or equivalent) citations were added in the following more common format:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This was reported by Allen and Iacono.<ref name="AllenIacono1997">{{cite journal|last=Allen|first=J.J.B.|last2=Iacono|first2=W.G.|journal=Psychophysiology|title=A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection|date=1997|volume=34|pages=234-240}}</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This appeared in the article as follows:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This was reported by Allen and Iacono.

References

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On September 21, 2016, user Gluons12, in a good-faith effort, removed the parenthetical citations. Apparently he/she was unfamiliar with the first style above, and did not know that the parenthetical citations were in fact correct citations, and were linked to the "<cite id =...>" references listed in the reference section. (You can check this out by copying and pasting the first example above into the Sandbox and selecting "Show preview.") His/her comment was "Copyedit (major); removed many parenthetical phrases that seemed to be meant as citations, but had no link to the data that they meant to cite. Tried to fix them where I could.)"

The result was that some references in the reference section had no corresponding citations in the body of the article, because Gluons12 had deleted the citations in the body of the article, while the references in the reference section remained. (Also, in some cases someone else had deleted an entire section where the citation had been but had not deleted the corresponding reference in the reference section.) The reference section contained references in two different styles. Some references in the reference section were redundant, having been produced twice in two different styles.

I have integrated the two parts of the reference section, eliminated redundancy, and reformatted and reinstated citations that were deleted. Now all citations are in the Citation Style 1 (or equivalent) format, which by the time of this edit had become predominant in this article as well as in Wikipedia as a whole. There are now no redundant references, and all references in the reference section are cited in the body of the article.

I have also corrected many references, particularly references to published papers in scientific journals where all information about the journals was missing, and fixed many broken links (or eliminated them when the source was no longer available).

Neuroscientist1 (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++