A fair percentage of WR threads discuss questions concerning the meaning of words in specific contexts. At the disposal of participants in those discussions is a rich supply of online dictionaries, including the WordReference dictionaries, which help structure the discussions. About as many threads discuss questions concerning grammar. In those cases, however, the supply of reliable sources to refer to is more scanty and patchy. Speaking of the EO forum only, repliers often refer to sites such as the Capital Community College guide to grammar and writing and the University of Sussex guide to punctuation when backing up their answers. I am not saying those sources are dubious, yet I would not regard them as either comprehensive or authoritative. They are perfect up to a certain level of proficiency. When askers have moved beyond that level, it is somehow unsatisfactory to continue citing them. I think that ideally a language site such as WordReference should feature reliable reference sources not only in the form of dictionaries but also grammars, as it would give askers and repliers a common platform to start their grammar discussions from. This idea occurred to me a few weeks ago when participating in a thread discussing whether you or yourself should be used in While considering what jobs are suitable for you/yourself, you should... The thread ended up getting 70 posts, not because there were many participants (80% of the posts were submitted by two repliers), but because the most active members each held a firm opinion as to what was correct while being unable to back up their respective positions with an authoritative source. Once a source was found (toward the end of the thread), the discussion quieted. Said a replier at one point: "I can't believe this thread has 64 posts!"