User talk:Espt123

Leigh, Greater Manchester
Hi, I noticed your message on J3Mrs' talk pgae. Without having looked at the edit to the article, it seems you are asking for help regarding what is and isn't a reliable source. You seem to understand that having reliable sources is important for Wikipedia so that readers can double check the information for themselves, and to demonstrate that an article has been researched; it's a very good habit to get into to add a source every time you add information to an article. As far as Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources is concerned, Wikipedia itself is ironically not a reliable source; this is because it is written by anonymous contributors with unknown familiarity with a subject. It can be frustrating when you see information on one Wikipedia article and want to use it in another; it's a trap many editors have fallen into in their early days, with reasoning such as "but if it's there, why can't it be here too". If you do find information in one Wikipedia article that you want to include in another, as seems to be the case with the Leigh article, you can see if the Wikipedia article includes a source. If not, your next best option is to go to Google and see what comes up. What is and is not a reliable source is something of a judgement call, but it gets easier with experience. Common sources of usually reliable information online are newspapers. In general, broadsheets are considered reliable, and to some extent local papers are when there is no more authoritative alternative, while tabloids should generally be avoided. Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)