| name | hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check |
| description | 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 / source-pull. Builds and audits the apparatus for pull-readiness; it does not set Bluebook form per citation (hlr-sources-and-bluebook) or manage the editor relationship (hlr-student-editor-review). |
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
- 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.
- 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).
- 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
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
