330:
able to verify that the
Knowledge passage simply reflects the content of the primary source. In highly-technical articles, content need simply be verifiable by the intended audience, which may require technical knowledge and expertise." The original from NOR was always a bit vague. Do we really expect "anyone" to be able to read a scientific paper or a scholarly literary discourse? I think the original intention is that one doesn't need a specific subject specialist (e.g., an epileptologist in an article on epilepsy) but some level of education in the general area may be required. If we have the room to expand this here, lets use it. The second sentence is troublesome as WP article are written for the general reader. The "intended audience" is always the "general reader". The audience of an article on epilepsy is neither an epileptologist, a neurologist, a general practitioner or a nurse. It is you and me. Again, I think I know what the author means here, but it needs work.
313:"Often, secondary sources introduce a distinct viewpoint" is this true? I think the writer here is thinking about just one kind of secondary source (not sure which) but I can't see how such a wide sweeping remark is helpful. I suspect the section is only considering a secondary source that is itself discussing a single primary source (or a very few) when in fact many secondary sources collate and evaluate primary source material in a manner that is invaluable to us as WP editors (we aren't allowed to do it). The overall tone of this NPOV section seems to hint that secondary sources are somehow more likely to be corrupt wrt POV than primary. For example, "secondary sources have an opportunity to introduce further bias, or to introduce bias where none existed in the primary source". There's absolutely no counter arguments in this section about the opportunities for good professional secondary sources to remove bias. In the field of medicine, for example, a
274:
sentence generates the "tell me something I don't know" response. It appears to be a counter argument to the idea that evaluating sources is simple, but as a nutshell statement it is wasting space. The second is similar to what PSTS said but has two problems. (1) It demands ("should") people quote from primary sources, when quoting is not always the best technique and selective quoting from a primary source can be terrible. (2) "describing their contents" is worded all wrong. I don't want someone to "describe" a scientific paper to me, for example. I want to know what results it contained. The final nutshell sentence has "analysis" rather than "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims" from the original PSTS and the longer "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" from further up PSTS. Is "analysis" a sufficient replacement for all these?
366:
and sending drafts out for public/selective consultation, etc, etc. This section doesn't explain that in a so-called "peer-reviewed journal" there may be articles that had no peer review and some (e.g., the editorial) that are distinctly opinion pieces. What is lacking in this section in an article that claims to help one "evaluate sources" is any idea of the vastly different kinds of scientific articles there are and their relative worth as sources in an encyclopaedia. How should one compare a telephone questionnaire of 10 children with a multi-centre randomised controlled trial involving thousands of individuals? Should a careful meta-analysis by the FDA be treated with the same strength as the case notes of a single physician? All these might appear in a "peer-reviewed journal".
719:, and experts in the field disagree about the meaning of a particular passage, make sure that a sufficient number of secondary sources are presented to accurately reflect the variety of opinions within that field of study. Also, it would be important to ensure that the Biblical text presented as "authoritative" is the primary source itself, and not an interpretive translation or paraphrase from an opinionated secondary source. In many cases, of course, where the meaning or significance of the primary source is clear, and it is not disputed within the field, secondary sources are not required.
370:
for such facts. The section on using research reported in the press prior to proper scientific scrutiny is also very weak in its warnings. Such "research" should almost never be be used. The only time such unsound scientific practice should be reported in an encyclopaedia (which isn't in a hurry, remember) is when the controversy stirred up is noteworthy in itself. Newspapers tend to print the gushing press releases of research establishments and rarely take the care to interview the researchers. The combination of press-office and journalism leads to an article of negative merit.
182:
321:
also true that many primary sources contain secondary material. For example, many medical research papers have their research results as their primary information but begin with background material (description of disease, history, epidemiology, etc) that may build on both cited sources as well as the author's own experience. Shades of grey. This is all very interesting but not completely concerned with the NOV the section is about.
22:
81:
53:
145:
67:
245:
sources" is the scope of a book, and probably too ambitious. As an essay, it may be that the addition of editors has occurred too early and it might benefit from being userfied for a while. An alternative would be to instigate a few wikiproject-specific essays since the concepts and problems surrounding PSTS seem sometimes to be unique within disciplines.
379:
some aspect (it was big, well conducted, had few flaws, etc). I should cite the review, not the study. My source is stronger because it is based not only on the "best study" but also an expert's opinion that this is the "best study", and not merely me (as a WP editor) possibly cherry picking the primary material that suits my case.
888:
since been overwhelmingly accepted. However, all reference works have a limited life-span, beyond which their articles are only of limited practical use. Some encyclopedias, even highly respected ones, have notoriously long update cycles with the result that they might contain articles that may be as much as 40 years old.
241:
ideal. Much of the text, I feel, shows the author(s) opinions framed round the problems they have seen in their field, but when viewed by folk outside that field, appear unbalanced. Generally, the article appears to dislike secondary sources, which is odd and counter to the emphasis in the original PSTS.
554:
proven wrong. However, this proposal also contains "guidelines" that are just plain wrong and is unbalanced in its handling of some types of source material. The latter issues mean that ultimately, if those are not resolved, then I will strongly oppose its promotion. I suspect I won't be the only one.
1159:
The drive behind this page was an attempt to clarify the uses of sources within the context of our content policies. You are welcome to explore other ideas such as the SWOT one, in a separate essay as that does not fit here as per the lead on the essay, with
Dhaluza or any other editors interested in
612:
the PSTS section in the current policy, allowing that policy to clean up. As for idiosyncratic, this is, sure, but so is the current PSTS material. However, if others have changed their minds and now agree with SV that its unlikely to go anywhere, then I imagine we'll all just go back to edit-warring
428:
Great work. The science material was put together as a quick, first draft, and has scarcely been edited since then. The main point was to try to ensure that the language didn't unnecessarily bar the use of primary sources, and the perspective (my perspective) was primarily biology, not medicine. Your
731:
source for the current state of academic thought within the field about the original source. If a secondary source was written by a historical contemporary of the primary source, that source may have significance beyond its role as a secondary source, and may also be primary, and often represents an
594:
I think the problen with it is that it lost its way. It started as a subpage to NOR to explain the primary/secondary thing, but then it spread out and started giving general advice about sourcing, often doing nothing but state the obvious (e.g. "sources should be evaluated in context," which doesn't
518:
Who is "Carl"? Do you mean me? I don't see the point in editing a proposed guideline that is flawed in scope and premise. I'm interested in knowing how near readiness you think this is? You haven't responded to any of the criticism. Is this because you think it entirely without merit? Francis agreed
378:
some cases when the primary source is valuable (for extra detail, it is seminal in some way) but this isn't the rule. For example, an up-to-date review of the epidemiology of epilepsy will examine numerous studies over the years and might choose to pick one best study to-date as authoritative wrt to
1090:
What is wrong with you? This is an essay that was being worked on with a specific aim. You come along and add massive section on some idea about SWOT analysis and sources without even considering asking editors here if this is useful or noit. I reverted and moved your material to a separate essay,
892:
The first sentence is meaningless. Second sentence is fine, but it's just repeating what's said elsewhere on the page. Third sentence is also unclear and/or false, and that paragraph isn't the kind of thing that should appear in a guideline — it's either not clear what it means, or it's stating the
373:
The section on review articles is quite misguided and I'm not sure where the idea comes from that they are more likely to escape peer-review than some others. A review in a scientific journal is a secondary source that should form the core from which to base a WP article. Lets not encourage editors
329:
There's some careless text here: "Descriptions of primary sources must stay close to the original." We don't describe primary sources, well not unless they are particularly interesting in and of themselves. I have a problem with "Anyone, even a non-specialist, who reads the primary source should be
320:
The "Secondary sources may also be used a primary sources." is confusing and I think the "used as" is wrong. I think what the author is saying is that some secondary source additionally contain primary material (usually the results of a synthesis of primary sources generating a novel result). It is
580:
Jossi, I agree that, as written, this is an essay. It's full of personal opinion, and it's anyway hard to see how it could be promoted. It couldn't be policy, because it's too idiosyncratic, but the main part of it (the primary/secondary thing) is already policy, so that part can't be demoted to a
369:
The paragraph on lay literature and newspapers is quite misguided. Our quality scientific and medical article do not rely on pop science books nor the newspapers for their facts (newspapers are for news). I could go on at length about why newspapers and magazines (even good ones) make poor sources
365:
The opening statement about someone else evaluating the text is true of all material. We wouldn't use any other kind of source because that's called "self-published sources". Editors and publishers are one kind of reviewer. The peer-review system is another. There are yet more involving committees
887:
Typically, text books and articles in reliable reference works that are known to have been written by experts on the subject are often the only means to determine whether a statement in a secondary source has merit or not, or if it has not long since been superseded by another hypothesis that has
300:
title, this article should either follow the primary method used by professional writers (whatever that is, if there is one) or discuss several methods. From the discussions above, it appears I'm not alone in thinking PST is an odd choice to pick when starting to evaluate a source. Why elevate it
240:
I understand this was originally an attempt to replace PSTS and provide further guidance. But the article is too long and the nutshell too condensed. Some sections should be excised and the appropriate encyclopaedia articles improved if required. Some sections repeat policy too much, which is not
553:
I have respect for the small handful of editors who have worked on this and am rather surprised, given their experience, at its current state. I hope others (some of whom may have worked on this) will agree that this approach needs a rethink. If I'm wrong about the approach, then I'm happy to be
827:
My sense is that the key point is that the relativity. A novel is a primary source for literary criticism about the novel. A novel is an example of an object of academic research (e.g., literary criticism, literary history, literary biography); it is not itself academic research; its study and
631:
If it were to replace any part of NOR, it would need to be written as policy, but that's not the language it uses, and it includes passages that are completely impenetrable, so it would need a serious clean-up before it could be proposed as policy. Also, it didn't stick to the primary/secondary
244:
The original idea of expanding PSTS had merit, but the grand title awarded to this page has caused the scope to become unclear. I can't see how such a long and problematic piece of text can become official any time soon. I suggest it be tagged as an essay and the scope re-examined. "Evaluating
705:
bias, or to introduce bias where none existed in the primary source. In addition, the meaning of primary sources might change based on the historical context. Thus, secondary sources will often discuss the historical context of the primary source, and such information is often invaluable, and
273:
The current nutshell "Sources should be critically evaluated within the context of the articles in which they are used. When using primary sources, editors should stick to quoting from them and describing their contents. Any analysis of a primary source requires a secondary source." The first
256:). BTW: I've only skimmed the above talk-page discussions. There are many editors on WP who evaluate sources and write articles as part of their day job. I'm a complete amateur and my main interest is medical articles, as a lay editor. Given the talent there is here, we can do better.
304:
While looking at the content policies, the text drops into essay style by repeating policy and providing an opinionated discussion based on the author(s) POV. In order for this to become a consensus document it needs to be seriously tightened up, trimmed and criticised.
700:
The secondary source may dispute the primary source, question its validity or authenticity, or "spin" the source according to a particular ideology or agenda. Therefore, while primary sources are often biased, secondary sources have an opportunity to introduce
382:
The section does not mention monographs, nor other forms of scientific and medical literature such as clinical guidelines or government and industry standards. National clinical guidelines, for example, are some of the most scrutinised documents you may find.
813:
A primary source on itself and its subject matter, yes. But how do you deduce that from "In the humanities, materials that are potential objects of academic research but do not themselves constitute academic research are considered 'primary sources'"? :-)
354:"Much has been written about the academic theory of source classification." what is this puff doing in a guideline? I couldn't find any text here concerning "application". This belongs in the "types of source" section, which belongs in the encyclopaedia.
828:
production are in "the humanities". So that's just how I read the sentence. It doesn't seem confusing to me (although it doesn't seem like the most helpfully worded way to express that point--I hope I didn't write it). What does it look like to you? --
883:
In the humanities, materials that are potential objects of academic research but do not themselves constitute academic research are considered "primary sources." In turn, the academic research that evaluates those primary sources are the "secondary
722:
Secondary sources may also be used a primary sources. Such sources serving a dual role are typically important and relevant to the topic, and represent points of view that should be presented. For example, if a secondary source is available that
993:
781:
Some of the material on this page seems idiosyncratic at best. For example: "In the humanities, materials that are potential objects of academic research but do not themselves constitute academic research are considered 'primary sources'."
842:
It doesn't really mean anything to me. I think it's either meaningless or almost tautological (when studying primary sources, academics are studying primary sources). I would rewrite it if I knew what it was trying to say, but alas ...
1021:
has been changed from "This essay examines how to evaluate sources within the context of
Knowledge's content policies." to "This essay examines several methods for the evaluation of sources." (title and content of a page are not
1129:
Whether or not it is a brainfart is irrelevant, isn't it? I think it is a positive step to get people out of their trenches and stop talking next to each other regarding the PSTS issue. That's how it worked for
233:
Nutshell: This is an essay and should be tagged as such. Marking it as a potential guideline or policy is not helpful. It should be renamed and the scope reviewed because the current name/shortcut is too grand.
749:
The issue of primary and secondary sources has nothing to do with bias. A secondary source may introduce bias, or it may reduce it. A primary source may be highly biased, or not. Bias is a completely separate
295:
This section then looks at each of our content policies from the framework of PST source typing. This is just one way of looking at the problem, and not necessarily the most obvious way. To have such a grand
696:
Maintaining a neutral point of view is one of
Knowledge's most fundamental policies. It is important to ensure that all relevant major and significant-minority viewpoints are presented, and in a neutral way.
282:
This section attempts to teach the editor about the different PST source types. In making no reference to
Knowledge policy or guidelines, this section is merely encyclopaedic text that should be in, em, an
460:, but thrown out of there mainly for excessive bloat (if my memory doesn't fail me). It still isn't regarded very highly, e.g. " poorly written and not that useful, and probably not needed anymore"
911:'s work would be considered a secondary source, though in it's own field (humanities) it's a historical (and therefore primary) source. Certainly, there are better ways to express this, I'm sure.
519:
with me that this should be an essay but you reverted. I think you need to justify to us, in the face of the described weaknesses, why you still consider this potential guideline material.
632:
sources thing, but included all kinds of general advice that shouldn't be on a policy page, so those parts would have to be removed. But then it's not clear there would be much left.
158:
1249:
125:
907:
I think it is an attempt to express the "disconnect" between the library science definition of primary sources and the humanities usage. For example, in a lot of PSTS definitions
709:
Therefore, it is important when using secondary sources to ensure that all important viewpoints about the primary source are represented in a balanced way, taking care to avoid
979:
Also note that SWOT analysis are commonly performed on business ventures and/or projects. Using that model to the analysis of sources, pushes OR to a new dimension.
566:
Colin, the discussion about primary sources and PSTS is and will remain a highly debated issue for a while. It is popping out in many pages, and this is one of them.
287:. The reader looking for guidance has to plough through all this, and a couple of bulky tables, before getting to any actual guidance. It doesn't belong here.
1259:
200:
391:
I've no experience here but the final sentence seems to discuss editor behaviour and the need to avoid outdated ideas that are common to all disciplines.
706:
frequently there is a consensus as to the context within the academic field. Such views as to the context are almost always relevant to the discussion.
539:
other editors that have contributed to this proposal. There is no rush, it would either be edited further, used, promoted or demoted. Time will tell.
135:
88:
739:
secondary; if such doubly-secondary sources are cited, a sufficient number of them should be presented to ensure that the balance is neutral.
1254:
595:
really say anything, because how could they be evaluated out of context?). It seemed to be turning into a re-run of
Reliable sources.
453:
1029:
957:
97:
362:"The general rule is to always consider the source." empty stuff. Considering the source is why the editor has come to this page.
333:
There's some odd stuff about "interpretations" in primary source material needing to be treated differently to secondary material.
727:
summarizes all the important points of view on an issue, and does so in a neutral manner, that secondary source may be cited as a
799:
I believe what it's trying to say is that, for instance, a novel would be a primary source. It's the relative use issue again. --
691:
785:
It's not clear what this is trying to say, but at face value, it sounds wrong. Can someone provide a source for it, please?
755:
The bit about secondary sources being primary sources if they summarize all the important points of an issue is not correct.
66:
1033:
1018:
999:
932:
58:
33:
1222:) is as much OR about OR. Dismissing argument, much of Knowledge's guidance is ultimately based on OR. Other example,
992:
Essay that is exclusively on evaluating sources within the context of
Knowledge's content policies has been moved to
1231:
1199:
1138:
1060:
1041:
942:
476:
457:
490:
Colin, but this is still a live proposal. If it becomes a guideline or not, time and more discussions are needed.
317:, provides an objective framework specifically designed to eliminate bias and separate the wheat from the chaff.
101:
213:
154:
1111:
Sorry, but I do not have any constructive criticism about that material. In my opinion it is a brainfart.
1227:
1195:
1134:
1056:
1037:
938:
472:
39:
732:
important point of view as to the original meaning of the author and the relevant historical context.
1003:
735:
In some cases, secondary sources may be interpreted or "spun" by contemporary sources that are even
916:
861:
833:
804:
622:
434:
297:
219:
253:
1157:
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors.
962:
This essay examines how to evaluate sources within the context of
Knowledge's content policies.
314:
464:. Yes, I agree with you: needs more rewriting if someone wants to prove it generally useful.
215:
181:
93:
467:
Just a question, without wanting to drain too much time from you, could you have a look at
1235:
1203:
1169:
1165:
1142:
1120:
1116:
1104:
1100:
1092:
1083:
1079:
1071:
1064:
1045:
984:
973:
969:
946:
920:
901:
894:
865:
851:
844:
837:
822:
815:
808:
793:
786:
771:
764:
710:
677:
670:
640:
633:
626:
603:
596:
589:
582:
575:
571:
561:
559:
548:
544:
526:
524:
513:
509:
499:
495:
480:
438:
419:
412:
400:
398:
263:
261:
96:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
669:
It's very hard to see what this section is saying, so I'm moving it here for discussion.
960:. This section moves this essay in adifferent direction than it was originally created (
217:
1219:
533:
don't see the point in editing a proposed guideline that is flawed in scope and premise
468:
1243:
1191:
1034:
Knowledge:Evaluating sources#SWOT analysis on primary, secondary and tertiary sources
933:
Knowledge:Evaluating sources#SWOT analysis on primary, secondary and tertiary sources
912:
857:
829:
800:
618:
614:
430:
374:
to choose primary sources here when the secondary source is often superior. There
1223:
1218:: This is not really an argument is it? For example, " it is easy to misuse " (
994:
Knowledge:Evaluating sources within the context of
Knowledge's content policies
1161:
1112:
1096:
1075:
980:
965:
567:
555:
540:
520:
505:
491:
394:
257:
144:
80:
52:
581:
guideline. It seems that the only sensible thing is to leave it as an essay.
284:
1000:
Knowledge:Evaluating sources#Evaluation per content policies and guidelines
531:
Nope, Colin. On the bases of your opinion and the opinion of Francis, that
504:
And you are welcome to add/edit/expand/delete from it ... this is a wiki.
1091:
so that you can work on it. And then you come and do this? Please do not
1070:
You are incapable of accepting constructive criticism. I am undoing your
964:, as per the lead). As a separate essay, it can be developed further.
1155:
This is an essay, not a policy page, guideline or main page article.
1055:) I'm open to constructive criticism about the new SWOT section. --
1025:
SWOT analysis is an evaluation method, and is present in the essay.
715:
908:
341:
Can you give an example of third-party primary source material?
608:
I believe that I and others had hoped that it could evolve and
92:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
879:
As that entire section seems problematic, I'm moving it here:
220:
175:
15:
998:
An appropriate link to that essay has been placed under the
143:
760:
The part about "doubly secondary sources" is impenetrable.
454:
Knowledge:Reliable source examples#Advice by subject area
1216:
1131:
461:
249:
452:: the "Application" section is a reworking of
1250:Low-impact WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
8:
161:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
713:. For example, if a primary source is the
471:? Would welcome any comments! tx again. --
47:
1002:section header (note that, for instance,
411:An excellent analysis, Colin, thank you.
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
49:
535:, then don't edit. But please respect
462:as someone commented about a month ago
937:I'm open to constructive comments. --
7:
1226:wouldn't be thinkable without OR. --
1190:- you mean: this is an exception to
1133:and I'm sure many more to follow. --
1051:As I wrote in the previous section (
21:
19:
229:A review of this proposed guideline
38:It is of interest to the following
1260:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
931:Added a new section to the essay:
777:Personal opinions in this proposal
456:. That section was once a part of
116:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
100:. For a listing of essays see the
14:
1030:Knowledge:Sources - SWOT analysis
958:Knowledge:Sources - SWOT analysis
86:This page is within the scope of
446:Hi Colin, tx for your analysis.
248:Here's my review of the text at
180:
79:
65:
51:
20:
692:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
1:
481:20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
401:19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
264:19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
1019:Knowledge:Evaluating sources
617:and sparring on Talk:NOR. --
130:This page has been rated as
110:Knowledge:WikiProject Essays
89:WikiProject Knowledge essays
1236:10:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1215:Re. "OR about OR" argument
1204:20:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
1170:20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
1143:18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
1121:16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
1105:16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
1084:16:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
1065:09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
1046:09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
1032:has been provide under the
974:03:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
947:18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
921:09:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
902:21:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
866:05:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
852:22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
838:22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
823:22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
809:22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
794:15:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
772:14:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
678:14:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
641:22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
627:22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
604:18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
590:15:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
576:20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
562:19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
549:17:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
527:12:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
514:01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
500:01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
439:16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
420:14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
113:Template:WikiProject Essays
1276:
689:
458:Knowledge:Reliable sources
429:edits would be welcome. --
301:above the other criteria?
1255:NA-Class Knowledge essays
1052:
151:
129:
74:
46:
856:I don't disagree .... --
1028:An appropriate link to
890:
155:automatically assessed
148:
136:project's impact scale
881:
686:Neutral point of view
153:The above rating was
147:
1160:that idea of yours.
1004:Knowledge:Notability
350:In academic writing
1036:section header. --
1017:First sentence of
149:
34:content assessment
1168:
1119:
1103:
1095:to make a point.
1082:
987:
972:
900:
850:
821:
792:
770:
676:
639:
602:
588:
574:
547:
512:
498:
418:
387:In the humanities
315:systematic review
226:
225:
205:
174:
173:
170:
169:
166:
165:
162:
1267:
1228:Francis Schonken
1196:Francis Schonken
1188:This is an essay
1164:
1135:Francis Schonken
1115:
1099:
1078:
1057:Francis Schonken
1038:Francis Schonken
983:
968:
939:Francis Schonken
899:
897:
849:
847:
820:
818:
791:
789:
769:
767:
675:
673:
638:
636:
601:
599:
587:
585:
570:
543:
508:
494:
473:Francis Schonken
417:
415:
278:Types of sources
221:
203:
184:
176:
152:
118:
117:
114:
111:
108:
94:Knowledge essays
83:
76:
75:
70:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1240:
1239:
954:
929:
895:
845:
816:
787:
779:
765:
745:Main problems:
694:
688:
671:
667:
634:
597:
583:
413:
408:
389:
360:
358:In the sciences
352:
347:
339:
327:
311:
293:
280:
271:
231:
222:
216:
189:
115:
112:
109:
106:
105:
102:essay directory
64:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1273:
1271:
1263:
1262:
1257:
1252:
1242:
1241:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1124:
1123:
1108:
1107:
1087:
1086:
1049:
1048:
1026:
1023:
1015:
996:
989:
988:
953:
950:
928:
925:
924:
923:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
778:
775:
762:
761:
757:
756:
752:
751:
687:
684:
666:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
444:
443:
442:
441:
423:
422:
407:
404:
388:
385:
359:
356:
351:
348:
346:
343:
338:
335:
326:
323:
310:
307:
292:
289:
279:
276:
270:
267:
230:
227:
224:
223:
218:
214:
212:
209:
208:
207:
206:
195:
194:
191:
190:
185:
179:
172:
171:
168:
167:
164:
163:
150:
140:
139:
128:
122:
121:
119:
84:
72:
71:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1272:
1261:
1258:
1256:
1253:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1245:
1238:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
995:
991:
990:
986:
982:
978:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
952:SWOT analysis
951:
949:
948:
944:
940:
935:
934:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
905:
904:
903:
898:
889:
885:
880:
867:
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
848:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
826:
825:
824:
819:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
798:
797:
796:
795:
790:
783:
776:
774:
773:
768:
759:
758:
754:
753:
748:
747:
746:
743:
740:
738:
733:
730:
726:
720:
718:
717:
712:
707:
704:
698:
693:
685:
683:
680:
679:
674:
664:
642:
637:
630:
629:
628:
624:
620:
616:
611:
607:
606:
605:
600:
593:
592:
591:
586:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
564:
563:
560:
557:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
529:
528:
525:
522:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
465:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
440:
436:
432:
427:
426:
425:
424:
421:
416:
410:
409:
405:
403:
402:
399:
396:
392:
386:
384:
380:
377:
371:
367:
363:
357:
355:
349:
344:
342:
336:
334:
331:
324:
322:
318:
316:
308:
306:
302:
299:
290:
288:
286:
285:encyclopaedia
277:
275:
268:
266:
265:
262:
259:
255:
251:
246:
242:
238:
235:
228:
211:
210:
202:
199:
198:
197:
196:
193:
192:
188:
183:
178:
177:
160:
156:
146:
142:
141:
137:
133:
127:
124:
123:
120:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
85:
82:
78:
77:
73:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
1224:WP:V#Sources
1214:
1187:
1156:
1050:
1011:
1007:
961:
955:
936:
930:
891:
886:
882:
878:
784:
780:
763:
744:
741:
736:
734:
728:
724:
721:
714:
711:undue weight
708:
702:
699:
695:
681:
668:
665:NPOV section
609:
536:
532:
487:
466:
449:
448:
445:
393:
390:
381:
375:
372:
368:
364:
361:
353:
340:
332:
328:
319:
312:
303:
294:
281:
272:
250:this version
247:
243:
239:
236:
232:
186:
131:
87:
40:WikiProjects
30:project page
29:
690:Main page:
450:Side-remark
345:Application
298:WP:EVALUATE
1244:Categories
1022:separable)
896:SlimVirgin
846:SlimVirgin
817:SlimVirgin
788:SlimVirgin
766:SlimVirgin
672:SlimVirgin
635:SlimVirgin
598:SlimVirgin
584:SlimVirgin
414:SlimVirgin
291:Evaluation
254:2007-12-31
132:Low-impact
98:discussion
62:Low‑impact
1162:≈ jossi ≈
1113:≈ jossi ≈
1097:≈ jossi ≈
1076:≈ jossi ≈
1008:guideline
981:≈ jossi ≈
966:≈ jossi ≈
956:Moved to
893:obvious.
884:sources."
568:≈ jossi ≈
541:≈ jossi ≈
506:≈ jossi ≈
492:≈ jossi ≈
406:responses
237:Summary:
201:Archive 1
1130:Dhaluza,
1072:WP:POINT
1010:, not a
913:Vassyana
858:Lquilter
830:Lquilter
801:Lquilter
682:Begins:
619:Lquilter
431:Lquilter
269:Nutshell
187:Archives
1220:WP:PSTS
1093:disrupt
729:primary
703:further
610:replace
486:Thanks
469:WP:WITS
134:on the
1192:WP:OWN
1166:(talk)
1117:(talk)
1101:(talk)
1080:(talk)
1012:policy
985:(talk)
970:(talk)
750:issue.
725:itself
615:WP:NOR
572:(talk)
545:(talk)
510:(talk)
496:(talk)
204:(2007)
157:using
107:Essays
59:Essays
36:scale.
1053:#SWOT
1006:is a
742:Ends
716:Bible
556:Colin
521:Colin
395:Colin
258:Colin
28:This
1232:talk
1200:talk
1194:? --
1186:Re.
1139:talk
1061:talk
1042:talk
943:talk
927:SWOT
917:talk
909:Bede
862:talk
834:talk
805:talk
737:more
623:talk
488:Carl
477:talk
435:talk
325:OR/V
309:NPOV
159:data
613:on
537:all
376:are
337:BLP
126:Low
1246::
1234:)
1202:)
1141:)
1074:.
1063:)
1044:)
1014:).
945:)
919:)
864:)
836:)
807:)
625:)
479:)
437:)
1230:(
1198:(
1137:(
1059:(
1040:(
941:(
915:(
860:(
832:(
803:(
621:(
558:°
523:°
475:(
433:(
397:°
260:°
252:(
138:.
104:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
