This answer is more generic advice than Buddhist specific advice, as it was originally written. In the comments the OP ties hard to rationalise by making an analogy (similar to writing an essay about a fly when asked about a fish, citing that flies come a fish market) after the the post was make.
I feel it should:
- rewritten from a Buddhist perspective or POV
- if the above does not happen, deleted
Having a Buddhist POV does not necessitate citation though this will be good, but should be that a beginner reading will see relationship with this and a Buddhist Concept. A reader should feel, "Yes. This is a Buddhist answer.". If a reader feels this is a Buddhist answer then it should be "on topic" (related to Buddhism, about Buddhism, from a Buddhist POV or perspective). Again this has nothing to do with being: strict or not, having quotation of not, citations or not, providing or not providing links. It is more how it is presented. E.g. (this may not the the perfect examples and hope it does not lead to more diversions from the issue at hand) It is like layman's terms and technical terms. (This does not again imply content should be full of technical terms, there should be enough parallel to relate this to a Buddhist concept.)
Put it another answers should not be like something put together through general knowledge, or other form of domain knowledge, alone, i.e., not expert answer. What I mean here as expert is someone with some domain knowledge vs not domain knowledge on relative basis than someone with little domain knowledge vs deep domain knowledge. (Aside from this: when leaving comments some demonstrable research may be warranted as update additional information will require attention and effort. Also people may lose faith in the site when trivial or things taken for grant is asked.)