New FAC stuff edit
Okay, you have an article at FAC and I've posted the dreaded "What makes this site reliable?" message, but I'm obviously being my clueless Yank self. How do you persuade me that it's actually a reliable site, and worse ... that it's a high quality reliable source?
It's actually pretty easy. Basically, we need to know what sort of fact-checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc., or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute or you can show the author is a noted expert in their field, or you can show that the author is actually a member of the press. The way to show high quality is to show multiples of the above... if it only meets one of the above methods, it may be a WP:RS, but it's not going to be enough of a high quality source to meet the FA criteria. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Keep in mind though, that some sites just aren't going to be reliable, and that even if a site is reliable for usage elsewhere on wikipedia, it may not meet the requirement for high quality that is at FAC. The adage "Not everything you read is true." is, unfortunately, quite true and it is alive and well on the Web.
Note that this doesn't just apply to websites - it applies to printed works too. A high school textbook is likely a WP:RS in general wikipedia terms but it is highly unlikely to meet the high quality criteria at FAC. A small town newspaper or a regional historical societies journal is likewise, likely WP:RS, but is much more iffy about meeting the high quality bar.
PR stuff edit
Needs serious ref work edit
'''Comments''' from {{User|Ealdgyth}}
* You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for [[WP:V]]. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. ~~~~~
Everything is online edit
- I did notice something looking at the sources of this article, that every single one was available online. It is perfectly acceptable to use printed sources, and often times it's better to use them, as they will be more reliable than online sources.
Normal notice edit
'''Comments''' from {{User|Ealdgyth}}
* You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the article with that in mind. I reviewed the article as I would at FAC.
: Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) ~~~~~
FLC notice edit
'''Comments''' from {{User|Ealdgyth}}
* You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.)
: Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) ~~~~~
Everything looks great edit
'''Comments''' from {{User|Ealdgyth}}
* You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
: Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) ~~~~~
FAC stuff edit
Usual header edit
====Source review from Ealdgyth====
*
* I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. [ Earwig's tool] shows no signs of copyright violations.
: Otherwise everything looks good. ~~~~
Useful links edit
Dispatches link edit
Please see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches]] for further detailed information.
Websites in general edit
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches]] for further detailed information.
Quickie notes edit
- I've not seen yet an explanation for how (site) meets WP:V.
- What makes this a reliable source? (site)
- This certainly doesn't appear reliable: (site)
- Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SPS and explain specifically what makes these sources reliable in terms of Wiki policy.
Cite and Citation templates edit
They don't play well with each other, don't mix them.
Google books edit
It's always a good idea to read more than the snippets available on Google Books. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bubbles (chimpanzee)/archive1 for a good reason.