<h3>Improve external references and add hyperlinks</h3>
<p>CV.SE questions and answers should be self-contained, but often they will refer to external material such as academic papers, course notes, blog posts, software programs or packages, other questions/answers on SE, etc.  Improving external references and adding hyperlinks can simplify the formatting of a question or answer, and it is convenient for readers to have direct links to the source material.  Here are some tips for &quot;best practice&quot; with regard to improving external references:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Only include external references when they add something:</strong> Sometimes we see posts where the poster makes a gratuitous reference to external material only to tell us it was not helpful.  That is rarely something that adds value to the question or answer.  When giving external references, check if they actually add anything of value to the post, and take them out if they do not.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>Consider adding Wikipedia links for concepts/objects/rules in probability and statistics:</strong> Most basic concepts, objects and rules in probability and statistics have their own page on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>, and the quality of these pages is usually quite good.  It can be helpful to add links from these pages when writing a question or answer in order to assist users who might be unfamiliar with some of the material.  This is particularly helpful when giving answers that invoke a particular concept or rule in probability or statistics that the questioner, or other similar readers, may be unfamiliar with.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>Have a clear textual citation/description and a hyperlink:</strong> References to academic papers, course notes, blog posts, etc., are sometimes made without a clear reference or link, or with a textual web address in place of a reference/link.  A good external reference will give the name of the linked item (e.g., a simple citation or a description of the item) and a hyperlink that links to a stable source for that item.  References to external material do not require full bibliographic details, since the link itself gives access to the full details; consequently, it is best to give a reference in a simple format (e.g., Harvard style references to papers) and let the hyperlink take care of the rest.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>Replace textual web addresses with hyperlinks:</strong> Unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, textual web addresses should always be changed to hyperlinks.  Textual web addresses are ugly and distracting, and they are unnecessary given the ability to hyperlink text.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>Give page numbers, direct quotations, etc., where necessary:</strong> As with citations in academic papers, all external links should give sufficient detail to find the source of any referenced material.  If you quote from an external document you should use quotation marks to indicate a direct quote.  If you link to a document and quote from that document, or paraphrase a particular part of the document, you should include a page number in the reference (if it has page numbers) to allow the reader to identify the specific part containing the quoted/paraphrased material.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>Rephrase statements saying &quot;I have read ...&quot;:</strong> Sometimes references to external materials will be given in way where the description focuses on the fact that the poster has read the material, rather than focusing on the substance of what is in the material.  For example, a post might say something like, &quot;I have read X and they say Y.&quot;  This is unnecessary, since the reader may take for granted that if you cite a reference and describe its content, then presumably you have read it.  Thus, it is generally preferable to reduce &quot;I have read X and they say Y&quot; to something simpler like &quot;X says Y&quot;.  In cases like this it is usually possible to edit to give a more parsimonious description that focuses on the substance of what is in the external material at issue.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>In the section below I show an example of a bad version of a question that uses poor practices for structure and formatting of external material, and then an edited version that applies the above practices.</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Bad version:</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>This question is about robustness testing in linear regression analysis.  I consulted my lecture notes on this for my linear regression course, but they weren't any help --- they don't say much about robustness.  Aside from my lecture notes, I was reading this paper at <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2345881?seq=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.jstor.org/stable/2345881?seq=1</a> where the authors look at methods for robustness in regression modelling, and they have some useful technical material for how to do robustness testing in this context.  However, I also saw on Andrew Gelman's blog that he has a post where he comments on the limitations of robustness testing, and he says that robustness tests are typically to confirm your beliefs, which is typically a bad game to play.</p>
<p>How do I reconcile the use of robustness procedures in academic literature to the concerns expressed by Gelman?</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Good version:</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>This question is about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_testing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">robustness testing</a> in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression" rel="nofollow noreferrer">linear regression analysis</a>.  <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2345881" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Carroll &amp; Pedersen (1993), &quot;On Robustness in the Logistic Regression Model&quot;, J. R. Stat. Soc. B, 55(3), pp. 693 – 706">Carroll and Pederson (1993)</a> look at methods robustness in regression modelling, and they have some useful technical material for how to do robustness testing in this context.  However, <a href="https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/11/14/robustness-checks-joke/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this post</a> on <a href="https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Andrew Gelman's blog</a> comments on the limitations of robustness testing.  In particular, he says that &quot;[p]art of the problem is that robustness checks are typically done for purpose of confirming one’s existing beliefs, and that’s typically a bad game to be playing.&quot;</p>
<p>How do I reconcile the use of robustness procedures in academic literature to the concerns expressed by Gelman?</p>
</blockquote>
