427:. The extent to which spot checks are pursued is a matter for each reviewer. It is unreasonable to expect a reviewer to test each cited statement against its source; the volume of citations and the non-accessibility of many print sources make this infeasible. The FAC coordinators will usually require spot-checking for first-time nominations.
24:
101:
435:
Sourcing information should be presented in a consistent and uniform style; the increasing use of cite templates has made this easier to check. This part of the review is the most mechanical, but it should not be skimped. Certain tools have been developed to assist this process, and some of these can
225:
requirement; not all reliable sources will meet the FA quality criterion. Reliability may also be a matter of judgement. In cases of doubt, the onus is on the nominator to show that a source should be considered reliable; hence the question that often occurs in source reviews: "What makes this source
379:
Do the sources appear collectively to provide a comprehensive account of the subject, or is there over-reliance on a particular source or group of like-minded sources? Reviewers should be aware that even the highest-quality sources can be used selectively in a way that affects the neutrality of the
122:
The concept of "high quality" has to be flexibly applied. In some areas—major historical events, biographies of world figures, etc.—the relevant literature is vast, and high-quality sources are plentiful. In other cases, particularly in the various fields of sport or popular culture, "high quality"
402:
mean that they must be available to all online. Although verification is obviously easier for web-based sources, print sources must be ultimately verifiable to anyone willing to chase down a book or article. This means that books, newspapers, magazine and journal articles must be defined as
406:
Google Books links are often used for book sources. If Google Books makes the cited pages available, this is useful. Otherwise, the link may do nothing more than verify that the book exists. Some editors, nonetheless, are very fond of using them, but they are not essential.
253:, but the careful use of primary sources is entirely acceptable and even welcome. Tertiary sources are acceptable too, but the use of tertiary sources on a topic served by a large scholarly literature might be something to ask the nominator about.
351:". Reviewers with some expertise in the subject of the article will more easily be able to determine whether the sources used meet the required quality standard. The general questions on which all reviewers should try to satisfy themselves are:
466:, not hyphens; that the ranges are presented consistently (use either 125–128 or 125–28; the MoS prefers 125–128); and that the ranges are not too long (e.g. pp. 150–200 should be questioned). Page ranges that are manually written need a
384:
Making these judgements takes time, and raising them will sometimes invoke the ire of nominators, but if reviewers have any doubts about sources quality, individually or collectively, they should pursue the matter.
517:
or other less standard sources (e.g. conferences, legal cases, patents), it is best to consult the specialist templates created for these sources to ensure that the proper formats are created. See
510:: "Editors are encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation, or at least submit the referenced URL for archiving, at the same time that a citation is created or updated."
558:), but article titles are not (e.g. "Justice as Fairness"). Book publishers are included but not italicised (e.g. Oxford University Press). Correct italicisation follows naturally when
506:
require, minimally, title, a working link, the name of the site, and a retrieval date. Information such as author and date of the item should be included if available. According to
452:
should be defined in terms of author, title, year and/or edition, and publisher. Publisher location and, where possible, ISBN are usually added, but they are not required by
554:), but the names of publishers are not; newspaper and journal publishers are usually not included at all (e.g. The New York Times Company). Book titles are italicised (e.g.
484:
if online, and the page number if no link is provided. Other information should be provided if it is available: e.g. volume number, issue number. For journal articles, the
415:
Reviewers should carry out spot checks to ensure that sources have been used appropriately, that the sources do indeed support the text, and that the article contains no
233:, require that sources be reliably published, either in print form (book, journal, newspaper), audio-visual form (film, video, etc.), or online. Published sources may be
119:(1c). In addition, the citations must be formatted consistently throughout (2c). It is the task of the source reviewer to see that these criteria are observed.
456:. Consistency requires that these optional fields are either added in all instances or omitted in all instances (except where a book does not have an ISBN).
365:
Are the main sources reasonably up-to-date, and therefore likely to represent the most recent scholarship? Older sources, particularly contemporaneous
115:(FACR) require articles to be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (point 1c), and sources to be not only reliable but of
230:
681:
97:
review process. The purpose of this essay is to help editors carry out effective source reviews; article authors may also find the advice helpful.
686:
143:
36:
669:
296:
self-published material (such as books, blogs and personal websites), unless the author is a recognised published expert in the field; see
43:
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
44:
697:
134:). Where a cited source does not support the text, that source should be replaced or the text altered to reflect what the source says.
643:
templates may be used, but they should not be mixed within the same article because their punctuation differs. More details at
538:
420:
676:
534:: links that don't work or lead to a page other than that defined. You can only be sure of this by checking all links. Use
284:
industrial corporations and other private organisations as sources of information about themselves, but not otherwise (see
130:
material statement, unless self-evidently true, be supported by a citation, not only material likely to be challenged (per
256:
The key factor in assessing reliability is the publisher. Examples of publishers typically considered reliable include:
148:
Source reviewers are expected to make clear that they have fully evaluated the article on both the criteria given below:
717:
310:, although newspapers known for tabloid journalism may be used for the purpose of directly quoting an article subject;
550:: this is a factor that confuses many editors. The names of newspapers, magazines and journals are italicised (e.g.,
348:
344:
161:
157:
485:
165:
691:
416:
668:
Although written with FAC in mind, the principles may be usefully applied to other featured content, e.g.
100:
48:
572:
657:
326:
281:
other public bodies or organisations, e.g. universities, museums, major libraries, professional bodies;
58:
722:
497:
424:
301:
215:
32:
582:
562:
467:
307:
175:: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes
493:
398:
Every cited statement in an article must be capable of being checked from the source. This does
211:
637:
453:
246:
112:
373:
250:
238:
372:
In the case of anything contentious, are primary sources being used in accordance with the
297:
285:
207:
203:
94:
242:
644:
608:
will, in a citation template, produce incorrect italicisation. Some editors include both
518:
507:
343:
In addition to the usual reliability requirement, the text of featured articles must be "
108:
437:
369:, are often appropriate, but the nominator may need to explain why they've been chosen.
366:
234:
206:. Material about living persons, whether in biographies or elsewhere, must comply with
199:
131:
711:
625:
156:: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are
480:
if there is one, the title of the article, the name of the publication, the date, a
51:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
275:
national or international expert bodies, such as the World Health
Organization;
436:
be found in the toolbox which appears top right in every FAC nomination. (The
462:: Check that "p." and "pp." are used appropriately; that page ranges include
362:
Is the source that supports each point the most appropriate for that point?
249:
for the distinctions.) Articles should, where possible, be based mainly on
600:
fields. The work is the title of the newspaper, magazine or journal (e.g.
292:
The following are examples of sources not generally considered reliable:
260:
established commercial book publishers, particularly academic publishers;
463:
313:
477:
489:
500:
for sourcing and formatting requirements in medical articles.)
481:
218:
for sourcing and formatting expectations in medical articles.
18:
616:
in their source details, but this is not generally necessary.
269:
news organisations such as
Reuters and the Associated Press;
210:. All biomedical claims, in any article, should comply with
99:
544:
for this purpose; place it on article talk or the FAC page.
588:
are used. The main problem arises with the misuse of the
334:
80:
73:
66:
403:
precisely as possible; see the format section below.
266:
most national and regional newspapers and magazines;
198:
All sources must comply with the sourcing policies:
272:
broadcasting organisations such as the BBC and CNN;
123:often has to be interpreted as "best available".
107:All Knowledge (XXG) articles should be based on
604:). It is not the publisher. Thus, for example,
694:for detecting sources that may not be reliable
656:If you have questions, please ask for help at
8:
355:Do the sources represent the best available
682:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
278:governments and their agencies/departments;
93:Source checking is a critical part of the
687:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article criteria
488:is expected, and for medical sources the
229:The sourcing policies, and the guideline
144:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article criteria
670:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates
111:, but at FAC the bar is set higher. The
45:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
164:and are supported by inline citations
126:At FAC it is practice to require that
389:Checking the text against the sources
7:
440:claims to be "over 98% accurate".)
698:User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You
49:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
677:Knowledge (XXG):Featured articles
526:Particular things to look out for
476:sources require, minimally, the
22:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
474:Newspaper, magazine and journal
672:. Here are some useful links:
178:Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref: -->
1:
37:the Featured article criteria
231:Identifying reliable sources
357:for this particular subject
739:
324:
141:
56:
486:digital object identifier
138:Featured-article criteria
113:featured-article criteria
692:User:Headbomb/unreliable
181:or Harvard referencing
718:Knowledge (XXG) essays
539:Featured article tools
438:external links checker
104:
548:Inappropriate italics
347:against high-quality
160:against high-quality
142:Further information:
103:
47:, as it has not been
374:secondary literature
173:consistent citations
556:A Theory of Justice
444:Basic format checks
425:in-text attribution
241:and, occasionally,
602:The New York Times
552:The New York Times
468:non-breaking space
421:close paraphrasing
308:tabloid journalism
263:academic journals;
183:(Smith 2007, p. 1)
105:
251:secondary sources
221:Reliability is a
184:
180:
166:where appropriate
91:
90:
730:
642:
636:
630:
624:
615:
611:
607:
599:
595:
591:
587:
581:
577:
571:
567:
561:
543:
537:
349:reliable sources
337:
182:
176:
162:reliable sources
109:reliable sources
83:
76:
69:
26:
25:
19:
738:
737:
733:
732:
731:
729:
728:
727:
708:
707:
706:
666:
654:
640:
634:
628:
622:
613:
609:
605:
597:
593:
589:
585:
579:
575:
569:
565:
559:
541:
535:
528:
446:
433:
413:
396:
391:
367:primary sources
341:
340:
333:
329:
323:
300:, but also see
196:
191:
154:well-researched
146:
140:
87:
86:
79:
72:
65:
61:
53:
52:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
736:
734:
726:
725:
720:
710:
709:
705:
702:
701:
700:
695:
689:
684:
679:
665:
662:
653:
650:
649:
648:
617:
545:
527:
524:
523:
522:
511:
501:
471:
457:
445:
442:
432:
429:
412:
409:
395:
392:
390:
387:
382:
381:
377:
370:
363:
360:
339:
338:
335:WP:HIGHQUALITY
330:
325:
322:
319:
318:
317:
311:
305:
290:
289:
282:
279:
276:
273:
270:
267:
264:
261:
195:
192:
190:
187:
186:
185:
169:
139:
136:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
70:
62:
57:
54:
42:
41:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
735:
724:
721:
719:
716:
715:
713:
703:
699:
696:
693:
690:
688:
685:
683:
680:
678:
675:
674:
673:
671:
663:
661:
659:
651:
646:
639:
633:
627:
621:
618:
603:
584:
574:
564:
557:
553:
549:
546:
540:
533:
530:
529:
525:
520:
516:
512:
509:
505:
502:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
472:
469:
465:
461:
458:
455:
451:
448:
447:
443:
441:
439:
430:
428:
426:
422:
418:
411:Spot checking
410:
408:
404:
401:
394:Verifiability
393:
388:
386:
378:
375:
371:
368:
364:
361:
358:
354:
353:
352:
350:
346:
336:
332:
331:
328:
320:
315:
312:
309:
306:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
287:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
262:
259:
258:
257:
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
224:
219:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
193:
188:
177:(<ref: -->
174:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
150:
149:
145:
137:
135:
133:
129:
124:
120:
118:
114:
110:
102:
98:
96:
82:
78:
75:
71:
68:
64:
63:
60:
55:
50:
46:
40:
38:
34:
28:
21:
20:
667:
655:
631:
619:
601:
573:cite journal
555:
551:
547:
532:Broken links
531:
515:audio-visual
514:
503:
473:
470:after the p.
460:Page numbers
459:
449:
434:
419:, including
414:
405:
399:
397:
383:
356:
342:
321:High quality
291:
255:
228:
222:
220:
197:
172:
153:
147:
127:
125:
121:
117:high quality
116:
106:
92:
30:
723:User essays
226:reliable"?
214:; also see
194:Reliability
81:WP:FASOURCE
31:This is an
712:Categories
614:publisher=
594:publisher=
431:Formatting
417:plagiarism
345:verifiable
158:verifiable
583:cite book
563:cite news
498:WP:MEDMOS
464:en dashes
302:WP:BLPSPS
239:secondary
216:WP:MEDMOS
59:Shortcuts
638:citation
606:work=CNN
598:website=
504:Websites
494:WP:MEDRS
423:without
380:article.
327:Shortcut
314:fansites
243:tertiary
212:WP:MEDRS
492:. (See
454:WP:CITE
247:WP:PSTS
245:. (See
235:primary
223:minimal
189:Quality
74:WP:FACS
67:WP:FARS
658:WT:FAC
620:Either
596:, and
478:byline
298:WP:SPS
286:WP:SPS
208:WP:BLP
204:WP:NOR
171:(2c):
152:(1c):
95:WP:FAC
704:Notes
664:Links
645:WP:CT
610:work=
590:work=
519:WP:CT
508:WP:LR
450:Books
128:every
33:essay
652:Help
626:cite
612:and
578:and
513:For
496:and
490:PMID
202:and
200:WP:V
132:WP:V
660:.
482:URL
400:not
237:or
35:on
714::
641:}}
635:{{
632:or
629:}}
623:{{
592:,
586:}}
580:{{
576:}}
570:{{
568:,
566:}}
560:{{
542:}}
536:{{
288:).
647:.
521:.
376:?
359:?
316:.
304:;
179:)
168:;
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
