User:Brianboulton/Sandbox4

Links Links:
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox2
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox3
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox5
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox6
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox7
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox8
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox9
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox10
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox11
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox12
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox13
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox14
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox15
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox16
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox17
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox18
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox19
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox20
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox 21
 * User:Brianboulton/Sandbox 22

Simplified version of the Guidance essay on FAC source reviewing
There are four basic elements to FAC source reviewing: Purpose: (a) to confirm that statements in the article are supported by the cited source, and (b) to check against close paraphrasing of the source. I usually only do spotchecks for first or second-time nominators, though I occasionally hassle more experienced editors. Otherwise, I trust nominators, and state: "spotchecks not carried out". For this, I use the external links checker tool found in the toolbox at top right of the nomination page. I heard from somewhere that the tool is "98% accurate". Hmmm, perhaps so. I'm afraid I accept its potential inaccuracies as collateral damage – life is generally too short to check manually dozens, even hundreds sometimes, of links. If the number is very low, say less than a dozen, I probably will check them all manually. I generally leave a statement in the review stating what I've done. Because this is usually the area in which most issues are raised, people sometimes think it's mainly what source reviewing is about, but that's a misconception. You're looking for two things: to see that each source entry contains all the information necessary to identify it; and to see that the info is presented consistently and is MoS compliant. This means checking "p."s and "pp."s, ndashes, page range formats, date formats, publisher locations, simple typos, etc. It's humdrum and tedious, particularly when you can't find anything wrong, but it has to be done. Dull though it is, it's actually one of the easiest parts of reviewing, needing only a sharp eye and close attention. This is probably the most important aspect of FAC reviewing, in view of FA criterion 1c. It can also be the most problematic to the source reviewer, if he/she lacks knowledge enough of the subject area to judge whether the article really is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". My procedure is to look at each source individually, and if I have any doubt about it's meeting the FA quality/reliability standard, or if I just want a bit more information, I leave the message: "What makes [this] a reliable source?" (© User:Ealdgyth 2008). Occasionally, I'll ask for the matter to be decided by the consensus of knowledgeable content reviewers.
 * Verification – spotchecking
 * Checking links to online sources
 * Checking formats
 * Quality/reliability

I rarely register an oppose on sourcing, only if the sources are so badly wanting that the issues can't be resolved within the framework of the FAC. And I don't pursue minor niggles or personal preferences that don't impact on the article's quality.
 * General

The above is a summary of what I do. It's not a template that has to be followed, but it may help some reviewers who are a little diffident at the outset. With experience, you'll soon develop your own modus operandi.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)