<p>The problem with this is that there is no such thing as "canonical" or "authoritative" references. What constitutes "good" is also subjective. Some articles are certainly written as (if they were) canonical or with authority. Top-level research like this can be nice because it is accessible. But some articles venture into domains of "hand-wavy" to flat-out wrong. Claims made in either type of article are targeted at a familiar audience and may elude someone who's coming up to speed with a subject. </p>

<p>For instance, many users of our site still miss the fact that it is the <em>residuals</em>, not the outcome, that must be normally distributed in a linear regression to justify the F-test; no doubt they encountered the concept in basic texts but still lack an understanding. <em>Didactic</em> materials give more attention to developing concepts.</p>

<p>I think a more on-topic request would be for <em>reviews</em>, <em>applied</em>, or <em>didactic</em> materials like research articles or texts. </p>
