Template:Source assess

Template documentation[view] [edit] [history] [purge]

This template creates a row in a source assessment table, corresponding to a single source being assessed with respect to the general notability guideline (GNG). It is meant for use in deletion discussions. It must be enclosed in template {{source assess table}}.

The use of this template does not imply a final or consensus view of how any given source should be assessed. Though it may be used to summarize a developing consensus, it may also reflect the assessments of a single editor in the course of a discussion.

BackgroundEdit

The GNG is a general benchmark for assessing the presumed notability of article topics. From the GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The GNG and other guidelines expand on what is meant by "significant coverage", "reliability", and "independence".

This template (with {{source assess table}}) provides a visually clear means of presenting as assessment of sources against each of these three criteria, as well as an overall assessment derived from these criterion assessments.

UsageEdit

{{ source_assess
| source   =     <!-- Source (link or citation template)               -->
| ind      =     <!-- y/n/-/? -->
| ind_just =     <!-- Justification re: independence                   -->
| rel      =     <!-- y/n/-/? -->
| rel_just =     <!-- Justification re: reliability                    -->
| sig      =     <!-- y/n/-/? -->
| sig_just =     <!-- Justification re: significance of coverage       -->
}}

Abbreviated:

{{SA
| src = 
| i =  | ij =     
| r =  | rj = 
| s =  | sj = 
}}
Argument Purpose Notes
source or src The source being assessed Should contain, at the very least, a link to the source being assessed; it may contain any other useful information, including {{citation}} templates.
ind or i (independence) Discrete assessment of whether the source meets the criterion
Value Output Meaning
"y" (or equivalent per template {{yesno}}) Green check.svg [justification] The source meets the criterion
"n" (or equivalent per template {{yesno}}) Dark Red x.svg [justification] The source does not meet the criterion
"-" (hyphen) – [justification] The source partially meets the criterion
"?" Blue question mark (italic).svg [justification] It has not been or cannot be determined whether the source meets the criterion
[blank, or any other value] It has not been determined whether the source meets the criterion
rel or r (reliability)
sig or s (significance of coverage)
ind_just or ij Justification for the corresponding assessment These arguments are not strictly required, but their use is highly encouraged; deletion discussions are evaluated on the basis of well-supported arguments based on policy and guidelines.
rel_just or rj
sig_just or sj

"Overall" assessmentEdit

The template computes an overall summary assessment of the source, based on the three criteria. This overall assessment is determined as follows:

If... Overall assessment Meaning
All three criteria are "yes" Green check.svg The source supports the case that the article meets GNG
All three criteria are "yes" or "–" The source partially supports the case that the article meets GNG
Any of the criteria are "no" Dark Red x.svg The source does not support the case that the article meets GNG
Otherwise, any of the criteria are "?" or blank Blue question mark (italic).svg The value of the source with respect to GNG has not been or cannot be determined

ExampleEdit

{{ source assess table |
{{ source assess   <!-- first source -->
| source   = http://www.example_source1.com/doc1
| ind      = y | ind_just = 
| rel      = y | rel_just = The source is a noted book by a well-known author
| sig      = y | sig_just = The source discusses the subject directly and in detail
}}
{{ source assess   <!-- second source -->
| source   = http://www.example_source2.com/page1
| ind      = y | ind_just = 
| rel      = ? | rel_just = This is a self-published source, and the expertise of its author has not been established
| sig      =   | sig_just = 
}}
{{ source assess   <!-- third source -->
| source   = http://www.example_source3.com/file1
| ind      = y | ind_just = 
| rel      = y | rel_just = The source is a major newspaper
| sig      = - | sig_just = The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail
}}
{{ source assess   <!-- fourth source -->
| source   = http://www.example_source4.org/doc1
| ind      = n | ind_just = The subject works for this publication
| rel      = y | rel_just = This publication is a highly cited scholarly journal
| sig      = y | sig_just = The article discusses the subject directly and in detail
}}
}}
Created with templates {{source assess table}} and {{source assess}}
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Overall value toward GNG
http://www.example_source1.com/doc1 Yes Yes The source is a noted book by a well-known author Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail Green check.svg
http://www.example_source2.com/page1 Yes Blue question mark (italic).svg This is a self-published source, and the expertise of its author has not been established Blue question mark (italic).svg
http://www.example_source3.com/file1 Yes Yes The source is a major newspaper – The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail
http://www.example_source4.org/doc1 No The subject works for this publication Yes This publication is a highly cited scholarly journal Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail Dark Red x.svg

See alsoEdit