` :The number of words the sources take up compared to the main text is inconsequential. Firstly, the amount of text it takes to describe a source is entirely dependent on the person who originally inserted it, and can be changed. So counting the number of words doesn't tell us much. And, not to mention, even if # of words were a good measure of sources, I wish every article had this ``problem``. Too many sources? I've never heard anyone complain about that. It can only be a good thing. Sources don't need to be ``used to their full potential``. Sources need only back up the text, after the fact. Once adding a source, no one needs to worry that it's been ``under-used``. That's just silly.  / ''''`