I think it's wrong to use <related> blocks this way. The author refers to this precise list of articles in the text above (that is, each element of the list is essential for him). IV may not be available for some pages and as a result the associated page may disappear from these <related> block. Therefore the reader can miss essential contents.
- I think the <related> tag was meant to be used this way. These were the specifications from 6.3.2:
- Are thematically related to the current article.
- May also be located on a different website.
- Lists of related articles are (relatively) static (a news item may eventually get an extra link to the newest piece on the topic, but this just adds another item to an otherwise static list).
These tags fulfill all of the conditions.
- Type of issue
- IV page is missing essential content
- Feb 10, 2019