User:Jéské Couriano/Decode
Due to IRC character limits, I stick to shorthand when discussing sources for brevity. Sometimes this can be hard to understand, and so here is a quick-n-dirty guide to decoding my critiques.
Other helpers at any fora where sources could feasibly be assessed (such as WP:Articles for deletion or WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk) may use this as well, provided they link to this page in their assessment.
| When I say... | ...what I mean is |
|---|---|
| When I can read a source and it is not acceptable... | |
| "Useless for notability" | This source doesn't help for determining if a subject is notable per our standards, but may be used once notability has been established thru other means to cite non-controversial information or claims. Sources that are useless for notability cannot be used to cite biographical claims that could be challenged or medical claims. |
| "We can't use <foo>" | Wikipedia can't use the source under any circumstance, either because the source is one that would never be seriously cited outside of Wikipedia anyways (online storefronts, an artist's music videos), is an unethical SEO outlet, is blacklisted, or has been deprecated as a result of discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
| "Borderline" | The source could technically be used to help prove a subject's notability, but is fairly sparse on details and should be replaced with a more in-depth source that covers the same information as soon as one is found. |
| "<foo> is a non-sequitur" | The subject of the article isn't mentioned, let alone discussed, in the source proper. A source that doesn't even mention the subject of an article isn't a useful source for that article under any circumstance. |
| "404-compliant" | The source returns an HTTP 404 error (i.e. it no longer exists). I will also use this for sources which seem to redirect to a website's homepage (common for some websites when individual articles are deleted or moved). |
| "Discussed and dismissed" | The source is, content-wise, (almost) identical to a source that has already been assessed and found unsuitable and as a result is likewise not suitable. |
| "Mu. ([WP shortcut])" | The article, based on the sourcing or article text, falls into one of these topic areas, broadly construed: Abortion, alternative medicine, American politics after 1992, antisemitism in Poland, blockchain and related technologies, concluded national/subnational elections, COVID-19, Eastern Europe and the Balkans states, the Falun Gong, gender-related controversies, GMOs, gun control, the Horn of Africa region, the Indian subcontinent as a whole (including Pakistan and Afghanistan) other than biographies of living people, Iranian politics after 1978, Kurds and Kurdistan, Michael Jackson, Nagorno-Karabakh and related ethnic conflicts, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, professional wrestling, pseudo- and fringe sciences, race and intelligence, South Asian social strata, including castes, Sri Lanka, the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, The Troubles and British/Irish nationalism, the Ukraine-Russia war, United Kingdom-related articles, and the Uyghur genocide. As a rule I refuse to work in these topic areas and advise newer editors to avoid them like the plague due to their histories of partisan warfare on Wikipedia. |
| "I can't assess <foo>" | For one reason or another, I cannot assess the source myself, and therefore cannot comment on whether or not it is usable. This is not (and should not be read as) a rejection of your source; it merely means someone else has to assess it. |
| Why a given source isn't acceptable... | |
| "Too sparse" | The source provided is not in-depth and does not provide enough information to be usable as a source here. Quotes (no matter how extensive), profiles, stock tickers, extremely short news articles, most listicles, and mere mentions are this by default. |
| "Connexion to subject" | The source was created, in whole or in part, by the subject or surrogates thereof. Interviews and press releases are this by default. |
| "No editorial oversight" | The source is not vetted by professional editors whose job is to fact-check. Op-eds and all forms of user-generated content are this by default. Sources with explicit disclaimers as to their accuracy are likewise this. |
| "Unknown provenance" | The source's author is obfuscated by use of a role byline. This is generally done if the source is a press release, native advertising, or anything else the publication's authors did not themselves write and take credit for. Alternatively, the source could be a YouTube video, and the question of copyright is not clear; in such circumstances we can't link to or cite the video in question. |
| "Routine coverage" | This is run-of-the-mill coverage that would be covered as a matter of course for the subject in question. This is usually used for standard business news but it's possible for this to apply to sources about other topics. |
| "Circular reference" | The source is Wikipedia, a sister project, or a Wikipedia mirror. |
| "Streaming website" | The source is a music-streaming website. At best these sources are connected to the subject (due to them or their label providing access to their music) and at worst are contributory copyright infringement (pirate websites/radio). |
| "Online storefront" | The source is an online store or other similar commerce website. Online stores are normally not acceptable links and their very nature (i.e. trying to sell something) makes them unsuitable as sources. |
| "Website homepage" | The "source" is a website's homepage. Homepages are never going to have the sort of information Wikipedia requires a source to have; you need to link to specific pages/articles on that website that have the information you're trying to cite. |
| "Deprecated" | The source is one that has been deprecated or otherwise deemed unreliable as a result of discussions at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Most such sources are also listed on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial as deprecated or unreliable. |
| "Gov't document" | The source is a government document, usually either a court case, a government report, or a listing from a regulator. Government documents are primary sources and cannot be used for notability citations. |
| "Blacklisted" | The link provided is blocked either on Wikipedia proper or across all Wikimedia Foundation-run wikis. Blacklisted sites must be approved to be cited, and even then on a page-by-page basis, based on a need to cite it due to there being no other pages which have the same information that aren't blacklisted. |
| "Wrong topic/subject" | The source barely discusses the subject, instead being about something closely related to it. Coverage of someone or something closely connected to a subject isn't the same thing as coverage of the actual subject. |
| "Incomplete" | The source is an offline source (book, newspaper, magazine, etc.) that is missing bibliographical information necessary for a citation. Citations to books require the book title, author, year of publication, publisher, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#; use {{cite book}} for these cites. Citations to periodicals require the publication, edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline, and page(s) the article is on; use {{cite news}} or {{cite magazine}} for these cites. |
| If I can't assess a source at all... | |
| "Technical barrier" | A technical issue or barrier prevents me from assessing the source, either a website failing to load after repeated attempts or anti-blocker software preventing access to the website until the adblocker is disabled. As I can't assess the source, I cannot say if it is useful or not; you may need to wait to have this source assessed or find someone who isn't affected by the anti-blocker. |
| "Language barrier" | I can't assess the source because the source is written in a language I can't read even through automated translation (generally because the source is an image file or the automated translation is inaccurate, word salad, or otherwise incomprehensible). South and East Asian languages are particularly problematic. As I can't assess the source, I cannot say if it is useful or not; you need to find someone on Wikipedia who can read the source. |
| "Walled" | I can't assess the source due to a significant portion of it, if not all of it, being locked behind a registration or subscription requirement. As I can't assess the source, I cannot say if it is useful or not; you need to find someone on Wikipedia who can read the source. |
| "Geoblocked" | I can't assess the source due to it being unavailable to me based on my location. As I can't assess the source, I cannot say if it is useful or not; you need to find someone on Wikipedia who can read the source. (In helpers' case, using an open proxy or VPN to obfuscate our location is generally not an option.) |
| "Copy required" | The source is a book or similar piece of print media and there are no means for me to assess it without a physical copy (i.e. Google Books refuses to show the pages being cited, no digital version of a news article). As I can't assess the source, I cannot say if it is useful or not; you need to find someone on Wikipedia who has a copy of the source or can easily acquire or borrow one. |
| "Uncertain prestige" | The source is verifying the subject won an award, and I'm not familiar with whether or not that award would help towards notability. I am likely to do research on the award to ascertain how significant it is, so treat this as provisional. |
| "Need a timestamp" | The source is a video that is over five minutes in length, and therefore I want a timestamp so that I can assess it in a reasonable timeframe. I will only ask for a timestamp if the source doesn't already point to one in some way. |
| "Incompetent" | I do not have the necessary background knowledge needed to assess the source, generally because it is an academic research paper. As I can't assess the source, I cannot say if it is useful or not; you need to find someone on Wikipedia who can understand the source. |
| When I say... | ...what I mean is |
|---|---|
| "Source?" | This is a claim about a living or recently-departed person that requires a inline citation to a strong third-party source that can verify the claim. The source being cited elsewhere in the article is irrelevant; it needs to be cited here as well. |
| "Better used at <foo>" | The claim is irrelevant to the subject and would be better off being used, with appropriate sourcing, at the article on <foo>. |
| "Irrelevant" | The claim as made is irrelevant to understanding what a subject is or does, and would not fit in any other appropriate article (see above). |
| "Relevance?" | It's possible case could be made that the quoted passage is relevant to the article, but I'm not seeing how. (In essence, why are you including this passage? Defend your writing.) |
| "Excessive quote" | The quote, if left in the article, would likely be considered a copyright violation. Wikipedia does allow for the use of quotes, provided they are minimal; several-sentence-long quotes are always going to be an issue. |
| "Says who?" | This claim requires attribution, generally by stating in prose who said it and providing a source after the claim. |
| "86 it/this" | Remove the quoted passage from the article entirely. |
| "Rambling" | The passage is a run-on sentence that should be chopped up into multiple sentences instead. |
| "BuzzCut(TM) translation: <foo>" | The passage is overloaded with buzzwords. Everything after the colon is an attempt to reword it to both remove the buzzwords and make it neutral. |
| "This is unintelligible" | The passage does not make sense in English, nor is there any way to parse it to make sense. |