User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] PR stuff

'''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. ~~~~~

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.

[edit] FAC stuff

[edit] Websites in general

To determine the reliablity 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. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. It is all based on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB.

[edit] Quickie notes

  • 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.

[edit] Cite and Citation templates

They don't play well with each other, don't mix them.

[edit] Sandy's Tutorial

(outdent to Ealdgyth) Will do, since I used to check sources, and it's very needed. First, when you refer to ref no. so-and-so, that could be invalid by the time the next person accesses the article, since ref order can change. Second, it's best to show exactly why you question the source. That is, when clicking on a dubious source, I search around for a Contact Us, About Us, or some other page that tells me something about the site, which shows why I mistrust the source. When you're not sure if a source is reliable, it's best to ignore the ref number (since it may change) and pop up instead the URL to the page on the site which demonstrates its dubious reliability. Does that help? I'll give you more if needed; the idea is to show exactly why a site doesn't meet the authorship, fact-checking, etc. requirments of WP:V, or that it is a self-published personal page, for example. See some of my samples on other FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad you're willing to take this on; it seems few people really understand this territory. I wouldn't say "go for the jugular", because often the nominator can explain why a particular site or author is reliable even if they don't appear to be (that is, the author is a recognized, published expert in the field). For example, look at the FA I nominated, Tourette syndrome, and you'll see I have a blog in External links. Roger Freeman MD is a highly esteemed and published TS researcher, and I've added some verbiage there to explain why I include his blog. So, keep in mind that you don't want to embarrass yourself with a nominator who knows the topic, and may be able to explain why a source is from a recognized expert. It's the dubious websites that were looking for, particularly on BLPs and for hard data. In some cases, it's absolutely obvious that a self-published, dubious personal website is being used, but I click around, and if I can't satisfy myself that the site meets WP:V, first I question, then if I don't get a satisfactory response, I switch to Oppose. If you do this enough, you'll gain confidence at your ability to evaluate a source, but leave the door open to having a nominator inform you why the source is reliable. Watch for personal websites (geocities, home.net, things like that), about.com, commercial sites that are obviously selling products, etc. You can learn a lot by digging around in Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II/archive1 (skip down to the bottom where I added a list of questionable sources, and then follow discussion from there). On JSTOR (and PubMed), you're raising a different question: our sources don't have to be available online, so you shouldn't object just because someone links to the abstract. They link to the abstract as a means of showing the reader how to locate the actual source, not because the abstract is supposed to verify the text. It's really the dubious websites that need to be checked out; I hope you'll do it :-) I'll help you learn, if you can deal with my crappy prose and fast, sloppy typing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Part 2

Book sources need page numbers, chapters, or some means of locating the text within the book. News sources should include author and publication date when available so they can be located in a library if online links go dead; always click on a few to make sure full info is included (BBC rarely includes an author name, byline). New York Times archives became available recently; often the URLs can be added. All websources need title, publisher and last accesdate; author and publication date when available. Missing publishers are often a tipoff that the source isn't reliable; more than a few times I've noticed editors camouflaging non-reliable sources by not including the publisher in the ref. You can mouse over the sources for a quick glance to make sure citations used match the publishers listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Part 3

Know sources, but know editors as well (for example, it would occur to few of us to question Awadewit's sources :-). Some editors who have been around FAC for a long time always use reliable sources. Others rarely do. That doesn't mean we shouldn't check items on FAC regulars, but when time is limited, it's good to focus on where you might find issues. As an example, I worked on his first article peer review with M3tal H3ad before he ever brought a music article to FAC, and I've never seen him use a non-reliable source. I trained him well :-) Because you probably have limited time to review, it can be helpful to focus your time and energy on articles that 1) have enough support to pass FAC but haven't been checked yet, or 2) editors who may be new to FAC and not yet knowledgeable about sourcing. When an article has garnered enough Support to pass, I need to know that someone has reviewed content, prose, MoS and sources. If I don't see that, I have to do a spotcheck myself, which puts me in a conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Part 4

Remember that the reliability of the source depends on the text being cited, and whether there are WP:BLP issues. Using a credible, online fanzine (that specifies authors and appears to have some staff allocated to fact checking) to source a statement like:

According to fanzine X, musician Y said in an interview that his favorite song was Z.

is very different than sourcing to fanzine X a statement like:

Famous starlet A has bipolar disorder.

That kind of text in a BLP requires a very high-quality source. What is reliable for one statement might not be reliable for another, so before you question the reliability of a source, check the text that is being sourced. I archived Brittany Spears early because it relied very heavily on less than quality sources; since she has been written about in high quality sources, we shouldn't be sourcing her bio to sleezy sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Other bits

  • PubMed imports put science cites in with abbreviations, this is normal.

[edit] Sites so far

[edit] Weather

[edit] Math

Mathworld has the editorial oversight of Dr. Eric W. Weisstein, a professional encylopedist, and is published by Wolfram Research. Additionally, much of the material on this website can be found in the CRC Concise encyclopedia of mathematics, edited by Dr. Weisstein and published by CRC press. If editors feel sensitive about quoting an online source with a name like "Mathworld", they could instead look in the encyclopedia, which is available online here and most of it can also be found at books.google.com. Geometry guy 11:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Who

[edit] Comics

[edit] TV

[edit] Music

[edit] Movies

  • IMDb discussion
  • BoxOfficeMojo should definitely be considered reliable. A lot of newspapers subscribe to the service, and we consider their reporting of other data services to be reliable. Here's last weeks BoxOfficeMojo numbers in the Washington Post, for example: [1]. --JayHenry (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sports

[edit] Baseball

Sports Illustrated on Baseball Library: "a comprehensive source with Britannica-like accuracy".[6] Giants2008 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) P.S.: I clicked on a random team page at Baseball Library, and look what I saw on the bottom: "Game information provided by Retrosheet".[7] If SI calls Baseball Library an accurate source, isn't it indirectly saying the same about Retrosheet? Giants2008 (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American football

My name is Doug Drinen. I am a mathematician and a sports fan, so it shouldn't surprise you to learn that I am obsessed with football data. I collect it like some people collect stamps. I've been doing that for years now and the result was, up until now, an extensive but extremely unorganized collection of dozens of files spread across a few different computers and not connected in any way. Recently, I decided to organize it and make it available for public consumption. The result is pro-football-reference.com, which I believe is the most complete and most organized collection of football data on the web.

This article looks ready to promote as soon as this is dealt with, by removing the unsourced statements or sourcing them to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sports Illustrated once described Pro-Football reference as "a comprehensive source with Britannica-like accuracy." (Adam Duerson. "Welcome sites". Sports illustrated. March 27, 2006. page. 63. Available from Newsbank.) I've used similar sites for basketball articles, and I've never had any problems, at least as far as statistical information goes. They're far more reliable than the Sporting News registers (like this), which are always full of typos and missing information. Zagalejo^^^ 21:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soccer

[edit] Cricket

  • Cricinfo

[edit] Formula 1 racing

[edit] Basketball

[edit] Wrestling

[edit] Games

  • Game Trailers is part of Spike TV

[edit] Politics

Factcheck.org

  • Legitimate, well-known neutral fact-checking site. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Links to sites saying this? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
For starters, this one, but will look for others. Tvoz |talk 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an article that appeared in Wired magazine about factcheck.org. Tvoz |talk 17:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Another article, this one from GOOD magazine. Tvoz |talk 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.org

Globalsecurity.org is a "gold standard" source. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this in the HRC mess, what makes it a gold standard source per WP:RS? 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. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read the article? GlobalSecurity.org. It's a reliable source according to Forbes.com (linnk in the article), Quantcast [2], Popsci.com, Alsos.wlu.edu, etc. It's ridiculous that this is even a question. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I read the article. Okay, so Forbes says it's a great website for photos of intellegence sites and video footage. This doesn't address RS completely. That's the ONLY sourced information in the Global Security article. Just having an article with one source doesn't make it a reliable source. The other link you gave, wlu. edu, was much more helpful about showing that it's a reliable source. I'm not sure how the other two links you gave established reliability, but the Forbes and the wlu.edu site together satisfy my concerns. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Legends

I'm going to need something better than "someone says" a couple of links to CNN saying/using it? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Does this google search for Snopes.com site:cnn.com work for links of CNN using snopes.com? --Bobblehead (rants) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidey bar

{{hide|bg1= #C4C3D0|contentcss=border:1px #C4C3D0solid; |headercss=color:white; |header= Issues resolved, ~~~~|content=

}}

[edit] Boilerplate

[edit] Why it's a comment not a support/oppose

If you look at the other FACs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Others at FAC specialize in other areas, User:Tony1 does MOS issues and prose, User:Elcobbola does a lot of work on pictures and fair use. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article.

I hope this helps explain things to you. I know you're anxious for supports, and they will come, things move a their own pace at FAC. There are some good suggestions here about dealing with the FAC process.

[edit] Strikeouts/etc.

I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done.

[edit] Cite + Citation templates

You've mixed using the [[:Template:Citation]] with the templates that start with Cite such as [[:Template:Cite journal]] or [[:Template:Cite news]]. They shouldn't be mixed per [[WP:CITE#Citation templates]].