Template:Source assess
Template documentationThis 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:
| ||||||||||||||||||
| 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
}}
}}
| (This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.) | ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
See also
- User:DannyS712/SATG, a script for assisting users in creating a source assessment table.
- {{ORGCRIT assess}} / {{ORGCRIT assess table}} – similar templates for assessing against the notability criteria for organizations, businesses, products, and services