Open main menu

Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide

  (Redirected from User:Rosguill/NPPRS)

The purpose of this page is to centralize information about reliable sources for use by new page patrollers when reviewing new articles. It is intended as a supplement to the reliable sources noticeboard and List of Perennial Sources, to help page patrollers unfamiliar with a given subject assess notability and neutrality of an article––entries should focus on whether a specific publication is sufficiently reliable for significant coverage in the publication to count toward notability for a subject. Disagreements with assessments here should be escalated to the reliable sources noticeboard, with a notice also placed on the talk page of this article to notify editors about the discussion.

All information in this page should be written to reflect existing consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia.

This page is organized into sections corresponding to specific topics and regions that share sources in common. Sources may be included in more than one section if they are relevant to more than one section.

Contents

How to use and improve this pageEdit

Claims about a source's reliability should be cited to either to the perennial sources list or to discussions that demonstrate a consensus that the claim is true. Note that this is a considerably weaker standard than the one employed at the perennial sources list. This is because the purpose of this list is to provide at-a-glance reliability judgments for editors working on unfamiliar subjects, not to be a final arbiter on matters of reliability. While the discussions cited in this page may be useful resources when arguing about a given source's reliability, a source's inclusion in any given category on this page should not be used as an argument in any protracted discussion over a source's reliability.

If you would like to expand this page with the contents of a WikiProject source guide, either format a link to the relevant guide as a citation, or include it using a {{main}} or {{see also}} template.

If you disagree with any assessment listed on this page, either provide citations justifying a change, or start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard in order to establish a more holistic and up to date consensus. However, be mindful of the level of support for the claim that you intend to challenge: for instance, challenging sources listed at the perennial sources list is much less likely to result in a new consensus than challenging sources supported by a single discussion.

Contextual information about sources' affiliations, biases, and other information beyond a reliability judgment is intended to provide information to help contextualize sources, primarily to assess if an article is likely to be missing additional viewpoints.

Newspapers of record are generally considered to be reliable for purposes of notability and uncontroversial topics. However, more care may need to be taken when evaluating an article's neutrality.

By regionEdit

International reportingEdit

These sources have extensive coverage of many different countries and regions

ReliableEdit

  • Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera English, Arabic and English respectively, generally reliable with editors perceiving Al Jazeera English as more reliable than Arabic-language reporting. Some editors assert that it is a partisan source for politics in Southwest Asia, describing the source as anti-Israel and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.[1]
  • Associated Press, English, generally reliable.[1]
  • BBC, many languages, generally reliable. Some BBC projects are less reliable.[1]
  • Bellingcat, English and Russian, generally reliable, although preferably with attribution.[1]
  • The Christian Science Monitor, English, generally reliable for news reporting.[1]
  • Financial Times, English[1]
  • The Guardian, English, reliable for news reporting.[1]
  • The Nation, English, generally reliable, progressive political stance.[1]
  • The New York Times, English, generally reliable,[1]
  • Newsweek, many languages, generally reliable.[1]
  • Pew Research Center, English, generally reliable.[1]
  • Reuters, many languages, generally reliable. Note that press releases republished by Reuters are not automatically reliable.[1]
  • Der Spiegel, German, generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are generally unreliable as this particular journalist has been found to fabricate articles.[1]
  • Time, English, generally reliable. Time's magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy.[1]
  • The Wall Street Journal, English, generally reliable business publication.[1]

UnreliableEdit

  • Centre for Research on Globalization, generally unreliable. The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is a biased or opinionated source, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered. [1]
  • Consortium News, described as an unreliable and fringe outlet in a September 2019 discussion.[2]
  • HispanTV, deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.[1]
  • Middle East Forum, specifically its website meforum.org, most editors in a September 2019 discussion argued that it was some shade of unreliable, although there is no consensus on the exact degree.[2]
  • Press TV, English and French, owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[1]
  • Sputnik, many languages, Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, some editors consider Sputnik to be a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions.[1]
  • Telesur, deprecated. Useful only for statements of opinion from the government of Venezuela.[1]
  • WikiLeaks, a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. Most editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by the external links guideline.[1]
  • Wikinews, insufficient editorial oversight.[1]

No consensusEdit

  • The Grayzone Report, English, no consensus.[3]
  • International Business Times, many languages, quality is inconsistent, significant amounts of content are syndicated and not clearly marked.[1]
  • Mondoweiss, English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[1]
  • RIA Novosti, many languages, official news agency of the Russian government. It is generally considered a usable source for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability.[1]
  • RT (Russia Today), no consensus, described as a mouthpiece for the Russian government that at times has promoted conspiracy theories. Not reliable for controversial or political topics, no consensus about broader reliability.[1]
  • TRT World, English, an RfC closed in June 2019 reached a consensus that it is not reliable for anything with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest, but that it is likely reliable for unrelated reporting and statements about the official positions of the Turkish government.[4]
  • Vice Media (Garage, i-D, Motherboard, Vice, Vice News) There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice magazine or Vice Media websites, including Motherboard and Vice News. It is generally regarded as more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics.[1]

AfricaEdit

GhanaEdit

No consensusEdit
  • Graphic Ghana, a 2019 discussion on reliability was closed as no consensus due to insufficient participation. Most participants seemed to think it was reliable for most news coverage, although some concerns remain due to its unclear relationship to the Ghanaian government.[5]

NigeriaEdit

Reliable sourcesEdit
This section is based on this discussion.[6]
Not reliableEdit
This section is based on this discussion.[6]
Reliability unclear, proceed with caution:Edit

SomaliaEdit

ReliableEdit
  • Horseed Media, probably reliable.[8]
No consensusEdit

UgandaEdit

ReliableEdit
  • New Vision, large national newspaper, cited frequently by scholarly sources. Unclear if it has a conflict of interest with the government of Uganda. [9]
No consensusEdit
  • PML Daily, raised for discussion in June 2019, no editors made any claims to its reliability or lack thereof.[9]

AsiaEdit

ChinaEdit

Papers of recordEdit
UnreliableEdit
No consensusEdit

IndiaEdit

Papers of recordEdit
No consensusEdit
  • Orissapost.com, ok for non-controversial news reporting [15]

IranEdit

UnreliableEdit
  • Press TV, owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[1]
  • HispanTV, deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.[1]

IraqEdit

No consensusEdit
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network, may be usable with attribution[16]

Israel/PalestineEdit

ReliableEdit
UnreliableEdit
No consensusEdit
  • Mondoweiss, English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[1]

NepalEdit

No consensusEdit

South KoreaEdit

ReliableEdit

SyriaEdit

No consensusEdit
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network, may be usable with attribution[16]

TurkeyEdit

No consensusEdit
  • TRT World, an RfC closed in June 2019 reached a consensus that it is not reliable for anything with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest, but that it is likely reliable for unrelated reporting and statements about the official positions of the Turkish government.[18]
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network, may be usable with attribution[16]

EuropeEdit

Czech RepublicEdit

ReliableEdit
UnreliableEdit
  • Aeronet (aka AE News), described by an editor as "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.[19]
  • Aha!, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[19]
  • Blesk, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[19]
  • Parlamentní listy, described by editors as "horseshit" and "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.[19]
  • Super, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[19]
No consensusEdit

FranceEdit

ReliableEdit

GermanyEdit

ReliableEdit
  • Der Spiegel, generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are generally unreliable as this particular journalist has been found to fabricate articles.[1]
UnreliableEdit

RussiaEdit

UnreliableEdit
No consensusEdit
  • RIA Novosti, official news agency of the Russian government. It is generally considered a usable source for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability.[1]
  • TASS (ТАСС, ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union), reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues.[1]

United KingdomEdit

ReliableEdit
UnreliableEdit
No consensusEdit
  • Daily Mirror, tabloid.[1]
  • Evening Standard, despite being a free newspaper, considered more reliable than British tabloids.[1]
  • Hope not Hate, advocacy group for anti-racism and anti-fascism, reliability must be assessed on a case by case basis.[1]
  • Morning Star, no consensus, communist political line.[1]
  • PinkNews, no consensus, LGBT-oriented editorial stance.[1]
  • Hansard, primary source of transcripts from Parliament, use with attribution.[1]

North AmericaEdit

CanadaEdit

UnreliableEdit

United StatesEdit

Reliable sourcesEdit
Unreliable sourcesEdit
  • AlterNet, generally unreliable partisan source that also aggregates articles from other sources.[1]
  • Blaze Media, including Conservative Review, is considered generally unreliable for facts, sometimes reliable for opinions.[1]
  • Breitbart News, may be ok for opinion but in that case the specific article needs to be whitelisted.[1]
  • Cato Institute, reliable for opinion statements.[1]
  • The Daily Caller deprecated for publishing false information.[1]
  • Forbes.com contributors, no editorial oversight[1]
  • Frontpage Mag, uncontestedly described as fringe with a poor record of factual reporting by one editor with several examples in a September 2019 discussion[2]
  • Gawker, rumors and speculation without attribution. Defunct.[1]
  • Heat Street, usable with attribution, but does not sufficiently distinguish news reporting and opinion pieces.[1]
  • HuffPost contributors, minimal editorial oversight.[1]
  • InfoWars, did you really need to look this one up?[1]
  • Media Bias/Fact Check, generally unreliable, questionable methodology.[1]
  • National Enquirer, supermarket tabloid.[1]
  • Occupy Democrats, deprecated.[1]
  • VDARE, deprecated, consensus that it is generally unusable as a source.[1]
  • Western Journal two 2019 discussions elicited only strong condemnations of the source's reliability.[24][25]
  • WorldNetDaily, deprecated, there is a clear consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[1]
No consensusEdit

OceaniaEdit

AustraliaEdit

UnreliableEdit
  • Quadrant Magazine, generally unreliable for factual reporting.[29] Note that it is a literary magazine, and thus may still be reliable for literary reviews.
No consensusEdit

South AmericaEdit

VenezuelaEdit

UnreliableEdit
  • Telesur, deprecated.[1]
  • Venezuelanalysis, not reliable. Though it can be useful for some news related to Venezuela, Venezuelanalysis states that "it is clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution" and supports the Venezuelan government..[1]

By topicEdit

Generally speaking, significant independent coverage in any reliable news source contributes to the notability of any topic (however, they may be less than authoritative for supporting claims for specialized topics like science or religion).

In addition, here are some source breakdowns of sources that are specific to certain topics.

BiographyEdit

ReliableEdit

  • People, generally reliable for BLPs, do not use for particularly contentious claims.[1]

UnreliableEdit

No consensusEdit

  • Biography.com[1]
  • E!, generally usable for celebrity news but may not represent due weight.[1]
  • TMZ, no consensus about the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.[1]
  • Us Weekly, no consensus. Consensus that it is less reliable than People.[1]
  • Who's Who (UK), editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an independent source. It is generally considered more reliable than Marquis Who's Who, which is published in the United States.[1]

Books, fashion, film, music, television, video games and other pop cultureEdit

ReliableEdit

  • The A.V. Club [1]
  • Boing Boing, however there is no consensus regarding their reliability for topics other than pop culture.[1]
  • Common Sense Media generally reliable for film reviews, although they are an advocacy organization.[32]
  • The Daily Dot, reliable for content about internet culture.[1]
  • Deadline Hollywood reliable for entertainment-related articles.[1]
  • Entertainment Weekly, reliable for entertainment-related articles, no consensus for other topics.[1]
  • GQ, an August 2019 discussion had a unanimous consensus that GQ is reliable for fashion-related topics, and a less unanimous consensus that it is reliable for other topics as well.[33]
  • Gizmodo, reliable for pop culture and tech, discouraged for more controversial topics based on a July 2019 discussion.[34]
  • The Hollywood Reporter, reliable for entertainment-related articles.[1]
  • Idolator, reliable for music, evaluate for due weight on a case-by-case basis.[1]
  • The Mary Sue, reliable for reviews and opinion, not reliable for reblogged content.[1]
  • Rolling Stone, There is consensus that Rolling Stone is generally reliable. Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with proper attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking.[1]
  • Rotten Tomatoes, Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is a consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable.[1]
  • TheWrap, as an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics.[1]
  • TV Guide, generally reliable, some consider it to be a primary source.[1]
  • Variety, generally reliable entertainment trade magazine.[1]
  • Vice Media (Garage, i-D, Motherboard, Vice, Vice News), while there is no consensus for general reliability, it is reliable for arts and entertainment.[1]
  • Vogue, generally reliable.[1]
  • CliffsNotes is a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes to be usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources. Reliable for notability.[1]
  • SparkNotes, same as CliffsNotes.[1]
  • Vanity Fair, [1]

UnreliableEdit

  • Alternative Vision, an August 2019 discussion had a small consensus that it is not reliable[35]
  • Amazon, content is provided by sellers.[1]
  • Discogs, user-generated content.[1]
  • Genius, song lyrics and annotations are user-generated. No consensus about articles with bylines published on the website.[1]
  • Goodreads, user-generated.[1]
  • IMDb, user-generated.[1]
  • Last.fm, user-generated, deprecated.[1]
  • Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic), user-generated, deprecated.[1]
  • Tunefind, user-generated.[1]
  • TV Tropes, user-generated.[1]
  • WhoSampled, user-generated.[1]
  • Wikia (Fandom), open-wiki. Note that while Wikia should not be cited, when published under a compatible license it may be permissible to copy information from there.[1]

No consensusEdit

  • Know Your Meme, "submissions" are user-generated, no consensus for video series and "confirmed" entries.[1]
  • MetalSucks, MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement.[1]
  • TMZ, no consensus about the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.[1]

Useful linksEdit

Business, companies and productsEdit

ReliableEdit

UnreliableEdit

No consensusEdit

  • Business Insider, in 2015 their site had a disclaimer saying information therein may not be correct.[1]
  • International Business Times, many languages, quality is inconsistent, significant amounts of content are syndicated and not clearly marked.[1]
  • Investopedia, no consensus, tertiary source.[1]
  • The Next Web, no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[1]
  • TechCrunch, careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.[1]

GeographyEdit

Google Maps is useful for some purposes, but can also be considered original research. For China, OpenStreetMap is preferable.[1]

Medicine and healthEdit

ReliableEdit

No consensusEdit

  • Quackwatch, no consensus, self-published site run by an expert in the field.[1]

Military topics and firearmsEdit

No consensusEdit

  • defensereview.com leaning toward unreliable on the basis of being self-published, but insufficient discussion to reach a consensus.[36]
  • uboat.net, editors are divided on its reliability in two discussions. Editors allege a local consensus at WP:MILHIST that it is reliable up to GA level, but not for FA.[37][38]

UnreliableEdit

ReligionEdit

UnreliableEdit

No consensusEdit

  • Deseret News, while reliable for local news, it is owned by the LDS church, with no consensus on its reliability on matters related to the church.[1]

Science and technologyEdit

ReliableEdit

UnreliableEdit

  • CoinDesk there is a consensus that it is not reliable for evaluating notability on the basis of its coverage, and should be avoided in favor of mainstream sources.[1]
  • Crunchbase, user generated content.[1]
  • ResearchGate, user generated content. Papers hosted there may also be published elsewhere, in which case they may be reliable.[1]
  • Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu), user generated.[1]
  • arXiv, self-published source. Papers hosted here may or may not have also been published in a peer-reviewed journal–if so, cite that journal but provide a link to arXiv.[1]

No consensusEdit

  • The Next Web, no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[1]
  • ScienceBlogs, no consensus, network of invite-only blogs run by experts. However, some blogs may write about subjects outside of their author's expertise.[1]
  • Softpedia, reliable for reviews, no consensus for news articles.[1]
  • TechCrunch, careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.[1]

SportsEdit

ReliableEdit

UnclassifiableEdit

UnreliableEdit

  • Cracked (magazine), humor publication.[1]
  • LiveJournal, self-published.[1]
  • The Onion, satire.[1]
  • Quora, crowd-sourced.[1]
  • Wikidata, user-generated. However, uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data. [1]
  • Wikipedia, user-generated.[1]
  • WordPress.com, self-published blogs.[1]
  • YouTube, self-published. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to the external links guideline.[1]
  • Examiner.com, spam blacklist.[1]

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd de df dg dh di dj dk dl dm dn do dp dq dr ds dt du dv dw dx dy dz ea eb ec ed ee ef eg eh ei ej ek el em en eo ep eq er es et eu ev ew ex ey ez fa fb fc fd fe ff fg fh fi fj fk fl fm fn fo fp fq fr fs ft fu fv fw fx fy fz ga gb gc gd ge gf gg gh gi gj gk gl gm gn go gp gq gr gs gt gu gv gw gx gy gz ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk hl hm hn ho hp hq hr hs Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
  2. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Are_meforum.org_,_consortiumnews.com,_and_theguardian.com/commentisfree_RSs?
  3. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#On_the_reliability_of_The_Grayzone
  4. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267#RfC:_TRT_World
  5. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh
  6. ^ a b c Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 26#Expertise in Nigerian sources?
  7. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272
  8. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#Somalia news sources
  9. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267#PML_Daily_article_about_political_bloggers
  10. ^ a b c d e Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Chinese_news_sources
  11. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_274#Xinhua_reliability
  12. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#The Hindu
  13. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 158#Times of India
  14. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145#News rack: Is it a reliable source
  15. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_268#Orissapost.com
  16. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Kurdish_Press
  17. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_266#Is_Kathmandu_Tribune_a_Reliable_Source
  18. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267#RfC:_TRT_World
  19. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_268#Post-Velvet_Revolution_Mladá_fronta_DNES
  20. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#Le_Monde_Diplomatique
  21. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Russian_websites_gimn1567.ru_,_elib.biblioatom.ru_,_www.famhist.ru,_and_www.peoples.ru
  22. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#RfC:_The_Herald_(Glasgow)
  23. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_269#Teen_Vogue_for_political_or_crime_news?
  24. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Western_Journal
  25. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_273#RfC:_"The_Western_Journal"_(September)
  26. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_253#Are_Think_Tanks_considered_reliable_sources_for_politically_controversial_articles?
  27. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_274#The_Federalist_(website)
  28. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Right_Wing_Watch
  29. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine
  30. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_273#The_Internet_Speculative_Fiction_Database_as_a_source_for_BLP_data
  31. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Nickiswift.com
  32. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Common_Sense_Media
  33. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#GQ
  34. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#Is_Gizmodo_considered_a_reliable_source?
  35. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Alternative_Vision
  36. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#defensereview.com
  37. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#uboat.net
  38. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Uboat.net
  39. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Lambda_Alpha_Journal_for_Man_-_published_by_an_international_student_honors_society
  40. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Science_journal_magazines_(e.g._Nature,_Scientific_American_(SciAm),_Science,_etc.)