Template:Source assess
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[change source]
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".
{{Source assess}} and {{source assess table}} provide 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[change source]
This template must be wrapped in {{Source assess table}}, as shown in the example.
Parameters[change source]
Any parameter except for source can be skipped or left blank.
| Parameter | Purpose | Notes | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| source (or src, or the first unnamed parameter) |
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) |
Whether the source meets the independence, reliability, or significance criterion, respectively (use values at right) |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| 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) |
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
| <!--source info here-->
| i = | ij =
| r = | rj =
| s = | sj =
}}
Example[change source]
{{ source assess table
| user=Example
|
{{ source assess
| source = http://www.example_source1.com/doc1
| independence = y | ind_just =
| reliability = y | rel_just = The source is a noted book by a well-known author
| significance = y | sig_just = The source discusses the subject directly and in detail
}}
{{ source assess
| src = 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
| src = 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
| http://www.example_source4.org/doc1
| i = n | ij = The subject works for this publication
| r = y | rj = This publication is a highly cited scholarly journal
| s = y | sj = 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? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
"Overall" assessment[change source]
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 |
| One or more criteria are "~" (partial) and all the rest are "yes" | ~ Partial | The source partially supports the case that the article meets GNG |
| Any of the criteria are "no" |  No |
The source does not support the case that the article meets GNG |
| Any of the criteria are "?" (unknown) or blank, but none are "no" | .svg){kind=small} Unknown |
The value of the source with respect to GNG has not been or cannot be determined |
See also[change source]
- 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