OTH these 2 are just weblinks and I get the impression that they're looking for more tangible stuff like published papers or books with ISBN (which I doubt they'll ever read) as a "verifiable" source.
Hum, the part of "links with details" (authors, etc) makes sense that they requires it, but i don't think most of the distros on wikipedia has ISBN books, 99% should not have that
A good thing to do is to compare the info and specially those links with other "good and common" wikipedia pages like debian / ubuntu / mint / arch / gentoo
Yes, a few ones, linuxformat magazine published 2-3 times about elive including a cd on it. But not about common "books"
You generously gave 5 stars to Elive5
Thanks, I added them to the list, BTW I invite everybody that founds a (good only) article about elive to send them to:
this page is to receive the 64bit costfree if you submit an article, but the point is to have it "saved" somewhere, and there is the biggest list of articles about elive
Elive — Wikipedia Republished // WIKI 2
Hum, this wiki2 is interesting, and that article about Elive is quite long and well structured (based on the old version which we lost?), it has also many references link on it
I think that the best for this (git requires some advanced knowledges and its not so handy to use) will be use google docs for that (realtime multiuser collaborative editor)
Markdown (.md or .txt) should be the best format to write these things too