For those wondering (and as far as I've been taught), a quote in a literary paper is not the same as a reference in a scientific paper (what most laypeople probably think of when they refer to citing one's sources). They have different purposes in different types of papers. The former is a direct quote from the work being analyzed, as part of the analysis itself, while the latter is more of a "where did you get this claim/idea/concept from so others can also read about it as well as judge for themselves if it's credible and up to date?"

It would also require an inline citation for most science paper formats that universities accept, like (Shakespeare, 1601) and an associated long form reference at the end of the paper, none of my classes have ever accepted a superscript and footer (then again I never asked, I just used APA for everything and no prof ever batted an eye). I know journals sometimes do use superscripts, but they have proprietary formats that most professors don't expect students to use.

Though to be fair librarians are probably used to MLA format for literature, which is pretty much not used in science. I'm just splitting hairs and message that you need proper citations for both still stands.

And the citation is just awful.

Its certainly a source if the quote came from there.