Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks. I agree that at least the latter is reliable, because I can check with the information in the book, but it would be impossible to argue in a FAC (although it would pass in an A-class review). The problem is that there is nothing on either site which proves that they check their facts or go on sources (although, they probably do, but don't state them). I think I'm going to put it through a FAC last and if I get hired at the job I applied to then buy a couple of books through abebooks that give a little bit of information, but can replace some of the references to make it look much more diversified. I was thinking of some sort of fundraiser, but I doubt that would fly. :P JonCatalán (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you decide to go to the RSN with your source leave a message (inlcuding the external link) on the idicated page explaining that you would like an opinion on whether the source linked meets reliability requirements for your article on wikipedia. In most cases those who moniter the board will respond to your post in a few hours (the longest I have ever waited was about twelve hours, the shortest about 45 minutes). The people who look at the source will weigh in on there view of its reliability, and if they do not think the source is reliable they will explain why. You are welcome to ask question of the people who comment, they are usually patient on such matters and will explain there reasoning for rendering a source reliable or unrelieable. If they decide that your source is reliable, it would be a good idea to save a link to the discussion so that you can point to it if the source is questioned latter.
