Template:Source assess table/sandbox

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
[ Rows created using {{source assess}} ]
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}}.

This is the template sandbox page for Template:Source assess table (diff).
See also the companion subpage for test cases.

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

Shortcut

{{SAT}}

This template generates a source assessment table, which contains assessments of sources with respect to the general notability guideline (GNG). It is meant for use in deletion discussions.

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".

{{Source assess}} and {{source assess table}} provide a visually clear means of presenting an assessment of sources against each of these three criteria, as well as an overall assessment derived from these criterion assessments.

Usage

There are three different ways to use this template:

1. Use the "SA table generator" script

Add importScript( 'User:DannyS712/SATG.js' ); to your common.js page (User:[your username]/common.js). This will add a link ("SA Table Generator") in your Tools menu that will prompt you for inputs and generate a source assessment table automatically. A great option if you use this template a lot.

2. Wrap calls to {{source assess}} for each source

As the first (and only) unnamed parameter of this template, enter one or more calls to {{source assess}} (or its alias {{SA}}), providing parameters for each source inside that template. The table will initially display collapsed, unless the parameter |startopen= is used with a value of "Yes" (or "YES" or "yes").

{{ source assess table
<!--Optional: | user=<editor who prepared the table> -->
<!--Optional: | startopen=Yes -->
|       <!--All calls to {{source assess}} are inside this first parameter-->
{{ source assess | ... }} <!--Parameters described at {{tl|source assess}}-->
{{ source assess | ... }}
...
}}

3. Enter source information directly in this template

Manually add parameters for up to ten sources directly to this template. Parameter names are the same as the abbreviated forms used in {{source assess}}, but with a number 1-10 appended to indicate which source the parameter applies to. Any parameter except src can be skipped or left blank.

Parameter
(Replace "X" with 1-10 for each source)

Purpose

Use

srcX

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.

indX or iX

Whether the source meets the independence, reliability, or significance criterion, respectively (use values at right)

Value	Output	Meaning
"yes", "y", or equivalent per {{yesno}}	✔ [justification]	The source meets the criterion
"no", "n", or equivalent per {{yesno}}	✘ [justification]	The source does not meet the criterion
"~" (tilde), "-" (hyphen), "partial", "part", or "p"	~ [justification]	The source partially meets the criterion
"?", "unknown", "unk", or "u"	? [justification]	It has not been or cannot be determined whether the source meets the criterion
[blank]		It has not been assessed whether the source meets the criterion

relX or rX

sigX or sX

ind_justX or ijX

Justification for the corresponding assessment

These parameters 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_justX or rjX

sig_justX or sjX

Example using direct parameters

{{ source assess table
| user=Example 
| startopen=Yes 

| src1 = http://www.example_source1.com/doc1
| i1 = y | ij1 = 
| r1 = y | rj1 = The source is a noted book by a well-known author
| s1 = y | sj1 = The source discusses the subject directly and in detail

| src2 = http://www.example_source2.com/page1
| i2 = y
| r2 = ? | rj2 = This is a self-published source, and the expertise of its author has not been established
| s2 = 

| src3 = http://www.example_source3.com/file1
| i3 = y 
| r3 = y | rj3 = The source is a major newspaper
| s3 = - | sj3 = The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail

| src4 = http://www.example_source4.org/doc1
| i4 = n | ij4 = The subject works for this publication
| s4 = y | sj4 = The article discusses the subject directly and in detail
}}

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Example
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		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 of each 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"	Unknown	The value of the source with respect to GNG has not been or cannot be determined