Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Secondary sources are reports that draw on research and other references to make interpretive, analytical, or synthesized claims. [2] [3] Depending on the field, these may include textbooks, review articles, and peer-reviewed articles publishing original research. They are best used for representing significant points of view.
An important tool for evaluating a Wikipedia article is to look at its quality rating. Wikipedia articles are constantly being improved, and all at different rates. Some rival the best encyclopedias; others are out of date or incomplete. Volunteers will review articles and leave a rating on the Talk page.
Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised.
Brochure on how to evaluate a Wikipedia article and pdf version; How to Evaluate a Wikipedia Article – A one-page PDF with similar recommendations to this page. Evaluating Web Pages: Techniques to Apply & Questions to Ask from the University of California, Berkeley; Critically Analyzing Information Sources from Cornell University
This page in a nutshell: Cite reviews, don't write them. Appropriate sources for discussing the natural sciences include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as recent peer reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard ...
Peer-reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles. Journal articles come in many different types, and are a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Primary publications describe new research, while review articles summarize and integrate a topic of research into an overall ...
Due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning. Wikipedia:Peer review is the process designed to provide detailed comments.
Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles—guidelines for reviewing an article for GA status Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control/Reviewing Cheatsheet —useful suggestions for GA review Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not —GA reviews should be concluded only in accordance with the GA criteria, not personal preferences