With respect, this is from his link, and it does seem to have to do with his post:
**
Who decides how many Justices are on the Court? Have there always been nine?**
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.
Is the problem that he didn’t specify which Q&A from the link that he was referring to? Sorry, I am confused.
@DrDeth did take the moderation to heart and provided a better example of the same latter on, to his credit:
Where the original link was to a general SCOTUS FAQ with 15 (!) different possible questions. Yes, one of which was a very short section, quoted in my example above by @DrDeth. It is absolutely better when drawing on a general source to quote the specifics.
If the cite/link had been only about the history and legal backing of the number of justices, it would have been better as an un-excerpted link, but it’s generally better to give your fellow posters an idea of what the cite says rather than click to get it all. Especially when it’s a general, rather than a specific site.
It’s also serves a good purpose, because you have a chance to make sure your cite says what you think it does, which is the concern @What_Exit explicitly addressed.