| name | ylj-footnotes-and-cite-check |
| description | Use when running the final footnote-apparatus audit of a The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) piece — verifying every cite exists, is pinpointed, is correct Bluebook form, and actually supports its sentence, in preparation for (or during) the student source-pull. It verifies; it does not construct new cites (ylj-sources-and-bluebook). |
Footnotes & Cite-Check (ylj-footnotes-and-cite-check)
The heavy-footnote apparatus is what distinguishes legal scholarship, and YLJ's source-pull verifies
every footnote by hand. This skill runs the same audit you should run before submission and again
during editing, so the piece survives source-pull cleanly. It verifies an existing apparatus; building
cites is ylj-sources-and-bluebook, and the editorial cycle that triggers source-pull is
ylj-revision-and-editing.
When to trigger
- Final pass before submission — the apparatus must be source-pull-ready
- Answering source-pull author queries during the editing cycle
- A reader or editor flagged a cite that may not support its sentence
- Reconciling short forms (
id., supra) and cross-references after heavy revision
The four-point cite test (every footnote)
- Existence. The source is real and retrievable (case in the reporter, statute in the code,
article in the journal). Dead or invented cites are the gravest source-pull failure.
- Support. The cited page/section actually says what the sentence claims. The cite-doesn't-support
failure is the most common — read the pinpoint, not just the source's headnote.
- Pinpoint. The cite points to the exact page/section/paragraph relied on, not the source's first
page.
- Form. Bluebook form is correct for the source type, with the right signal and consistent short
forms.
Apparatus-wide consistency sweep
| Check | Failure it catches |
|---|
| Short-form chain | An id. pointing at the wrong antecedent after a paragraph was moved |
supra notes | A supra note 14 whose note 14 was renumbered or deleted |
| First-full-cite rule | A short form used before the source's first full citation |
| Cross-references | "See Part III.B" when restructuring renamed the Part |
| Quotation fidelity | Quoted text that no longer matches the source verbatim; missing [ ]/. . . |
| Signal accuracy | See where the source states it directly (or E.g. with one example) |
Risk-ordered audit pass
Do not audit footnotes only from note 1 to the end. First isolate the citations that would damage the
piece if they fail:
- Load-bearing law: holdings, statutory text, constitutional provisions, agency rules.
- Novelty claims: cites used to prove what prior scholarship has or has not said.
- Empirical / historical claims: any number, date, institutional practice, or archive fact.
- Quotations: all block quotes and all quotations used as proof of meaning.
- String cites: sources in a chain where one weak cite can make the whole proposition look padded.
For each high-risk note, write a one-line support note: "source says X at pin Y; manuscript sentence
claims Z; support is direct / inferential / weak." Anything weak becomes a revision task, not a
source-pull answer to defer.
Quotation and integrity audit
- Re-collate every direct quotation against the source character-for-character; mark alterations per
Bluebook (
[ ], . . ., (emphasis added), (citation omitted)).
- Flag any paraphrase that tracks the source's wording without quotation marks — fix it before an editor
raises it as an integrity issue.
Pre-empt the source-pull
Build a query-resistant apparatus: for the hardest cites, drop an explanatory parenthetical that shows
where in the source the support lives. This converts a likely author query into a verified footnote.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- A cite to a source whose pinpoint doesn't actually say what the sentence claims
id. / supra chains broken by reordering, left for the source-puller to untangle- A quotation that drifted from the source during editing (verbatim no longer matches)
- Relying on a headnote or syllabus instead of the opinion's actual holding page
- Treating the apparatus as the editors' job — they verify it; they don't build it
Output format
【Cites audited】N footnotes; existence + support + pinpoint + form all pass? Y/N
【High-risk notes】load-bearing citations support-logged? Y/N
【Hard cites】load-bearing cites re-checked against source? Y/N
【Short forms】id./supra chain + cross-refs consistent? Y/N
【Quotations】collated verbatim + alterations marked? Y/N
【Source-pull-ready】Y/N
【Next】ylj-workflow to route the next piece, or ylj-revision-and-editing if mid-edit
Supplementary resources
