Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about living persons. Please follow these carefully.
Wikipedia has a series of guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.
If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.
The first source covers a case where a parasitic vestigial twin was found on a young girl. The case covers the diagnosis, a background on vestigial twins, and what was done.
[2] The second source covers and defines what a vestigial twin is.
For this article, I plan on using the information from the articles I have chosen to expand on what exactly a vestigial twin is. The current wikipedia article is a bit vague, so I will expand on how and why it happens as well as more specifically describe what it looks like. I also plan on adding a few pictures to the article to show exactly what it looks like, as well as providing real cases and examples. I do not think that anything needs to be deleted, just that the article can be expanded on greatly. It is a very small article that could use more description to make it clearer as well as more information that will make it more helpful to those who read it.
^Stevenson, Roger E., ed. (2016). Human malformations and related anomalies. Oxford monographs on medical genetics (Third edition ed.). Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-938603-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
