|
.svg){kind=small}
 |
|---|
| 6 November 2024 |
|
While (as of July 2024) I'm certainly not a new editor, I would not consider myself experienced either. I'm still trying to figure out the true meaning of GNG, FAC, and other guidelines. If you think I've made a mistake, please let me know on my talk page. I welcome any non-GA comments on reviews of Good article nominees I have nominated, they help improve the article.
I don't really know how good of a source Wikipedia is, but it is clear that people use it a lot and trust it, so it is best that we give them a good (and factual) experience. ~UN6892 tc 01:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC) (see my essay for my thoughts on how this affects our bias)
On Notability
editWe on Wikipedia are not professionals, we are (mostly Western) people connected to the internet. As we are not experts, we should defer to reliable sources to get the facts, then use them in our articles. When creating an article, we should have multiple sources to ensure what we are saying is not only from one point of view. For the same reason, these sources should be independent of the subject, to prevent the subject from influencing said source's coverage. The coverage must be significant to ensure we have enough material for the article to avoid becoming a permastub.[1] I am unsure about exact numbers for how many sources are needed or how much coverage is "significant". My initial thought was two sources with two paragraphs or more, though others seem to prefer three sources with three paragraphs. In the spirit of having enough material, I personally believe that five or six sources, each with one or two paragraphs of coverage, would be enough assuming they are not talking about the exact same thing. However, this seems to be against consensus at the moment.
If you would like to write an article, I would highly recommend following WP:3REFS beforehand. Find three reliable sources which have significant coverage of the subject. If unsure about whether a source has significant coverage, ask an experienced editor. If unsure about the reliability of a source, look at WP:RSP or ask on the noticeboard.
Errors
editAs much as I really do not think we have enough contributors to ensure policies are being followed and articles are factual, I would note I have my own faults with that and have not tried hard enough to ensure that, perhaps because I am not often interested.
- Corrections
I can't exactly place corrections in mainspace so I might as well address the ones I remember here
Oshawa (federal electoral district) - Between June 8 and September 10, 2020, the article stated (from my addition) that the commission had accepted a proposed change by local Conservative MPs. This was not true, as I had misread the source.
WP:Articles for deletion/J.J. McCullough (3rd nomination) - I suggested when nominating this article for deletion on August 31, 2020 that the subject may belong in anti-Quebec sentiment. While I still think this is a case of WP:BIO1E, I don't think it belongs there.
DYK
|
|---|
 ...that the music video for Dua Lipa's song "Physical (Dua Lipa song)" is based on a Venn diagram from 1981? ... that despite a poll showing that the 2019 election in the Milton electoral district would be a toss-up, Liberal candidate and former Olympian Adam van Koeverden (pictured) won by a margin of fifteen percent? ...that a petition by Canadian Member of Parliament Pierre Poilievre to stop The Great Reset amassed 80,000 signatures after a conspiracy theory spread about it? ...that during his 2020 campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, Erin O'Toole made a platform catering to Quebec nationalist voters? ...that supporters of a 2020 ballot initiative to expand Medicaid in Missouri did not use the words "Medicaid expansion" to describe their proposal in some campaign material? |
Barnstars
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Notes
edit- ^ Anything above 1000 characters is likely fine, though around 1000 seems iffy.