31:
67:
147:
Just about every review, ranging from the movie column in a well-known newspaper to an anonymous blog post, can be a reliable source when used correctly. However, this does not mean that all of these opinions should find their way into
Knowledge (XXG)'s articles. Only "all significant views" need to
130:
It is important to understand that sources are not simply divided into reliable and unreliable sources. A source may well be both, depending on what information is taken from it. A reviewer of a certain product, TV episode, film, or whatever, may not be an expert in the field, his or her writing may
105:
Reviews make up a significant part of the sources used by
Knowledge (XXG) in particular in the area of popular culture. This essay deals with the relation of such and similar sources with core Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines. It also discusses how to select reviews for Knowledge (XXG)
235:
Ideally, the reader should understand, while reading the article, why the opinion of a particular reviewer is significant. In-text attribution, naming the author, wikilinking and explanations as to who the reviewer is, can help achieve that and avoid having to provide justification later.
231:
Reviews are typically cited in "Reception" sections to support the opinions of their authors. Only in rare cases should they be used in other sections of articles, where they are all too often used to back claims of fact exceeding the source's reliability.
170:
has gained a special meaning. In addition to its dictionary meaning, it refers to the suitability of a topic to be covered in a stand-alone article. Oftentimes, the existence of certain sources is used to determine a subject's notability.
197:
Before adding a reviewer's opinion to an article, ask yourself why this individual's opinion is worth mentioning. When such an addition is challenged, you should be able to respond by giving a convincing rationale.
189:
If this "significant coverge" is supposed to be made up of reviewer opinion, one has to consider that not only the depth of the coverage plays a role, but also the significance of the opinion.
223:
Such claims need to be substantiated by verifiable evidence. In case of websites, "About" pages are usually a good place to start looking. However, evidence is rarely found that easily.
175:
46:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
47:
153:
183:
179:
124:
79:
120:
166:
93:
51:
208:
The review's publishing newspaper/magazine/website is listed as a reliable source by some
Wikiproject.
248:
136:
39:
186:
of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
149:
86:
17:
219:
The review's publishing newspaper/magazine/website has a good reputation in the field.
242:
54:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
131:
be full of factual errors, yet the review remains a reliable source for
205:
The article needed more independent sources to save it from deletion.
123:, meaning the reader should be able to check the information against
152:, which is part of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy of writing from a
61:
25:
178:
states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in
110:
Reviews in relation to core policies and guidelines
164:Within the Knowledge (XXG) community, the word
8:
119:All information in Knowledge (XXG) must be
92:When using a review to assert a subject's
85:Every reviewer's opinion should be given
48:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
216:The reviewer is an expert in the field.
7:
52:thoroughly vetted by the community
24:
96:, consider who wrote the review.
89:, which may be no weight at all.
65:
29:
106:articles and how to use them.
82:for the opinion of its author.
1:
176:general notability guideline
265:
227:Using reviews in articles
212:Good arguments include:
201:Bad arguments include:
73:This page in a nutshell:
115:Reviews and reliability
160:Reviews and notability
143:Reviews and due weight
154:neutral point of view
78:A review is always a
50:, as it has not been
135:of its author. (See
174:For instance, the
193:Selecting reviews
148:be covered. (See
103:
102:
60:
59:
256:
180:reliable sources
125:reliable sources
69:
68:
62:
33:
32:
26:
264:
263:
259:
258:
257:
255:
254:
253:
239:
238:
229:
195:
162:
145:
117:
112:
99:
80:reliable source
66:
56:
55:
44:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
262:
260:
252:
251:
241:
240:
228:
225:
221:
220:
217:
210:
209:
206:
194:
191:
161:
158:
144:
141:
116:
113:
111:
108:
101:
100:
98:
97:
90:
83:
75:
70:
58:
57:
45:
36:
34:
23:
18:User:Goodraise
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
261:
250:
247:
246:
244:
237:
233:
226:
224:
218:
215:
214:
213:
207:
204:
203:
202:
199:
192:
190:
187:
185:
181:
177:
172:
169:
168:
159:
157:
155:
151:
142:
140:
138:
134:
128:
126:
122:
114:
109:
107:
95:
91:
88:
84:
81:
77:
76:
74:
71:
64:
63:
53:
49:
43:
41:
35:
28:
27:
19:
234:
230:
222:
211:
200:
196:
188:
173:
165:
163:
146:
132:
129:
118:
104:
72:
37:
249:User essays
184:independent
133:the opinion
38:This is an
167:notability
137:WP:SELFPUB
121:verifiable
94:notability
87:due weight
182:that are
243:Category
150:WP:DUE
40:essay
16:<
156:.)
139:.)
245::
127:.
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.