跳到主要内容
知仓学习社ZHICANG

hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check

Use when building and stress-testing the heavy footnote apparatus of a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece so it survives the student-editor cite-check /…

不碰外部(只输出文字)无严重或高危命中brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

它会碰到什么

扫了多少1 个文本文件,5 KB
它会碰到什么不碰外部(只输出文字)
命中总数0 处
命中统计严重 0 · 高 0 · 中 0 · 低 0

这一栏是扫描器报的事实,不是结论。命中多不等于有毒(安全工具、规则库、示例脚本本来就会包含危险写法),命中少也不等于干净。它和你手上的凭据、文件、网络有什么关系,需要你自己看。

技能内容

Footnotes and Cite-Check (hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check)

Legal scholarship runs on a dense footnote apparatus, and HLR editors run a **full cite-check /

source-pull**: they obtain every cited source and confirm that each footnote actually supports its

proposition, that quotations are exact, and that pincites are right. The author who is **pull-ready

before submission** sails through; the one who is not faces painful rounds. This skill builds the

apparatus and audits it for that scrutiny.

When to trigger

  • Building footnotes as you draft, or auditing them before submission
  • Preparing for the source-pull after an offer
  • A footnote carries a proposition you are not sure the source supports
  • Quotations, pincites, or short forms feel shaky after editing moved footnotes

What the apparatus must do

  1. Support every proposition. Each assertion of law or fact in the text has a footnote whose source

actually states (or, with the right signal, supports) it — at the exact page cited.

  1. Carry the qualifications. Caveats, contrary authority, and side disputes live in footnotes so the

text reads as a clean argument (see the text/footnote division in hlr-writing-style).

  1. Be verifiable by a stranger. A student editor with no prior knowledge must be able to pull each

source and confirm the footnote — that is the whole test.

Pull-readiness: the author's source file

Before submission, assemble a source file: a copy (or precise locator) of every cited source with

the cited page marked and the supported proposition noted. This is the single best predictor of an

easy cite-check.

| Source type | What to keep | Pull-check |

|-------------|--------------|------------|

| Cases | Reporter cite + the pincited page | Does that page state/support the proposition? |

| Statutes / regs | Exact section, current version | Is the language current and on point? |

| Articles / books | Copy with cited page flagged | Quote exact? Pincite to the right page? |

| Web sources | Archived/dated copy (link rot is real) | Captured with an access date? |

Self-running cite-check (do this before editors do)

  • Proposition ↔ source match. Read each footnote against the page it cites. If the page does not

support the claim, fix the cite or soften the claim — never leave the gap.

  • Quotation accuracy. Check every quotation character-for-character against the source; verify the pincite.
  • Signal accuracy. Confirm the signal matches the relationship (see hlr-sources-and-bluebook).
  • Short-form integrity. After any footnote reordering, re-verify every Id. and supra — these break

silently when notes move.

  • No orphan or dead cites. Every footnote resolves; no broken cross-references or rotted URLs.

Checklist

  • [ ] Every text proposition has a supporting footnote, pincited to the exact page
  • [ ] Source file assembled: every source kept with the cited page marked
  • [ ] Each footnote re-read against its source page (proposition actually supported)
  • [ ] Every quotation verified character-for-character and pinned
  • [ ] Signals match relationships; short forms (Id./supra) re-verified after moves
  • [ ] Web sources archived with access dates (link rot)
  • [ ] No orphan footnotes, dead cross-references, or unsupportable claims

Anti-patterns

  • Footnotes that gesture at a source which does not actually support the proposition
  • Quotations not checked against the original (a cite-check failure that erodes trust fast)
  • Dangling Id./supra after footnotes were reordered in drafting or editing
  • Citing web sources without an archived, dated capture (link rot at proof time)
  • Leaving the source-gathering until editors ask — assemble the source file before submission

Output format

【Apparatus】every proposition footnoted + pincited? [Y/N]
【Source file】all sources kept with cited pages marked? [Y/N]
【Self cite-check】propositions match sources; quotations exact? [Y/N]
【Short forms】Id./supra re-verified after moves? [Y/N]
【Pull-ready】a stranger could verify every footnote? [Y/N]
【Next】hlr-writing-style (text/footnote balance) → hlr-submission

Supplementary resources

  • [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — citators (Shepard's/KeyCite), archiving (Perma.cc), reference managers
  • [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — HLR's Bluebook role and editorial cite-check practice

想直接用这个技能?

本站把开放许可(MIT / Apache 等)的技能按仓库打包整理到网盘,点一下转存到你自己的网盘,不用一个个从 GitHub 拉。许可未声明的技能只给原始仓库链接,不打包。