Template:Source assess

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

Template: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".

This template (with {{source assess table}}) provides a visually clear means of presenting as assessment of sources against each of these three criteria, as well as an overall assessment derived from these criterion assessments.

Usage

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
| src = 
| i =  | ij =     
| r =  | rj = 
| s =  | sj = 
}}

Parameters

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

Parameter

Purpose

Notes

source or src

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

Discrete assessment of whether the source meets the criterion

Allowed assessment values:

Value	Output	Meaning
"y" (or equivalent per template {{yesno}})	✔ [justification]	The source meets the criterion
"n" (or equivalent per template {{yesno}})	✘ [justification]	The source does not meet the criterion
"-" (hyphen)	— [justification]	The source partially meets the criterion
"?"	? [justification]	It has not been or cannot be determined whether the source meets the criterion
[blank, or any other value]		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

Example

{{ source assess table
| user=Example <!-- Optional -->
|
{{ source assess   <!-- first source -->
| source   = http://www.example_source1.com/doc1
| ind      = y | ind_just = 
| rel      = y | rel_just = The source is a noted book by a well-known author
| sig      = y | sig_just = The source discusses the subject directly and in detail
}}
{{ source assess   <!-- second source -->
| source   = 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   <!-- third source -->
| source   = 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   <!-- fourth source -->
| source   = http://www.example_source4.org/doc1
| ind      = n | ind_just = The subject works for this publication
| rel      = y | rel_just = This publication is a highly cited scholarly journal
| sig      = y | sig_just = The article discusses the subject directly and in detail
}}
}}

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Example
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
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
Table 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
At least one criterion is "–", and none are "no", "?", or blank	— Partial	The source partially supports the case that the article meets GNG
Any of the criteria are "?" or blank, and none are "no"	? Unknown	The value of the source with respect to GNG has not been or cannot be determined
Any of the criteria are "no"	✘ No	The source does not support the case that the article meets GNG