Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „I have been checking the references to the figures and the table. While Arc never put the right reference, she mostly got the number only slightly wrong, and w…“ |
(kein Unterschied)
|
Version vom 26. Februar 2014, 00:41 Uhr
I have been checking the references to the figures and the table. While Arc never put the right reference, she mostly got the number only slightly wrong, and with one exception it is always slightly too high.
| Item | Correct reference | Given reference |
|---|---|---|
| Fig. 1 | 3 | 8 |
| Fig. 2A | 25 | 24 |
| Fig. 2B | 24 | 23 |
| Fig. 3 | 29 | 28 |
| Fig. 4 | 59 | 57 |
| Tab. 1 | 59 | 57 |
| Fig. 5 | 74 | 71 |
| Fig. 6 | 74 | 71 |
| Fig. 7 | 80 | 74 |
| Fig. 8A | - | 84 |
| Fig. 8B | 83 | 81 |
| Fig. 9 | - | 89 |
| Fig. 10 | - | 101 |
| Fig. 11 | 96 | 94 |
There are 3 figures, where no correct reference is possible, because the source from which the copied text has been documented is not listed in the bibliography (however, the figure could also be found in another paper by the same authors, which then might be listed in the bibliography).
My question: is it conceivable that here Word has played a trick and somehow the correct references were intended, but somehow in the writing process the links to the bibliography were broken and newly included references lead to the picture now visible? I guess, it is not my job to speculate about that, but still ... --Hindemith (Diskussion) 00:41, 26. Feb. 2014 (UTC)