Template:Source assess

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

{{SA}}

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.

Background

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".

{{Source assess}} and {{source assess table}} provide a visually clear means of presenting an assessment of sources against each of these three criteria, as well as an overall assessment derived from these criterion assessments.

Usage

This template must be wrapped in {{Source assess table}}, as shown in the example.

Parameters

Any parameter except for source can be skipped or left blank.

Parameter

Purpose

Notes

source (or src,
or the first unnamed parameter)

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.

independence
(or ind or i)

Whether the source meets the independence, reliability, or significance criterion, respectively (use values at right)

Value	Output	Meaning
"yes", "y", or equivalent per {{yesno}}	✔ [justification]	The source meets the criterion
"no", "n", or equivalent per {{yesno}}	✘ [justification]	The source does not meet the criterion
"~" (tilde), "-" (hyphen), "partial", "part", or "p"	~ [justification]	The source partially meets the criterion
"?", "unknown", "unk", or "u"	? [justification]	It has not been or cannot be determined whether the source meets the criterion
[blank]		It has not been assessed whether the source meets the criterion

reliability
(or rel or r)

significance
(or sig or s)

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)

Full parameter names:

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

Abbreviated form:

{{SA
| <!--source info here-->
| i =  | ij =     
| r =  | rj = 
| s =  | sj = 
}}

Example

{{ source assess table
| user=Example 
|
{{ source assess   
| source   = http://www.example_source1.com/doc1
| independence   = y | ind_just = 
| reliability    = y | rel_just = The source is a noted book by a well-known author
| significance   = y | sig_just = The source discusses the subject directly and in detail
}}
{{ source assess   
| src   = 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   
| src   = 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   
| http://www.example_source4.org/doc1
| i = n | ij = The subject works for this publication
| r = y | rj = This publication is a highly cited scholarly journal
| s = y | sj = The article discusses the subject directly and in detail
}}
}}

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Example
http://www.example_source1.com/doc1		The source is a noted book by a well-known author	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
http://www.example_source2.com/page1		? This is a self-published source, and the expertise of its author has not been established		? Unknown
http://www.example_source3.com/file1		The source is a major newspaper	~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	~ Partial
http://www.example_source4.org/doc1	The subject works for this publication	This publication is a highly cited scholarly journal	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

"Overall" assessment

The template computes an overall assessment of whether the source should count toward meeting WP:GNG, based on the three criteria. This overall assessment is determined as follows:

If...	Overall assessment	Meaning
All three criteria are "yes"	Yes	The source supports the case that the article meets GNG
One or more criteria are "~" (partial) and all the rest are "yes"	~ Partial	The source partially supports the case that the article meets GNG
Any of the criteria are "no"	No	The source *does not* support** the case that the article meets GNG
Any of the criteria are "?" (unknown) or blank, but none are "no"	Unknown	The value of the source with respect to GNG has not been or cannot be determined