Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification/Sub-page instructions

''This template contains the documentation that appears at the head of every sub-page in the WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification project. Include it thus: ''.

This is a list of Wikipedia articles that correspond to articles in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, and may have either inadequate or outdated information, or unacknowledged verbatim copying. It was generated in 2006 from the original 1911 topics list. At the time, in most cases, the Wikipedia article was simply annotated with the now-obsolete 1911 template. Current attribution standards require more precise attribution using inline footnotes. Please:
 * 1) The highest priority is to compare the Wikipedia article with the Britannica article:
 * 2) If there is verbatim text, acknowledge that with EB1911, using long or short inline citations (see WP:CITE, and note WP:CITEVAR). You can use a copyvio detector to compare the two tests: Earwig's is a good choice.
 * 3) If there is unsourced text that isn't verbatim, but can be supported by reference to Britannica, use Cite EB1911 in either of the two styles.
 * 4) Change any uses of 1911 to EB1911 or Cite EB1911.
 * 5) Add a wstitle or title parameter to any EB1911 or Cite EB1911 template. See this category page for why it's important.
 * 6) Include volume and page (or pages) in the citation template. Page numbers will be visible in the margin if the Wikisource article is transcluded from Page space. Also, previous editors have sometimes left the page number in a comment.
 * 7) If the EB1911 article has a named author, ensure first and last, and author-link where approriate, are provided. Use first1 etc. for multiple authors.
 * 8) Verify that each of the articles has updated coverage and is at least as comprehensive as the 1911 Britannica.

If the EB article is on more than one page (unless it's just a few lines that happen to cross a page boundary), you should use a general reference and inline sfn calls with a p or pp parameter. Otherwise you can choose between that style or simple inline references; sometimes an article will have an established style and you should follow it.

If the article, or a section of it, is badly out of date or has WP:NPOV problems, you can use Update-EB to draw attention to that. If the article is essentially unchanged from the original (except additions like a lead paragraph and footnotes), please use EB1911 article with no significant updates in the footer (either with or without One source). See the documentation pages of these templates for more information.

When done, keep the article on the list, in case we need to make another pass, remove the search template, and add a tag to the entry, after any hyphen, as follows:
 * ok to indicate that the article, as named, has EB1911 text and has been checked.
 * no1911 to indicate that the article has no attributable 1911 text
 * In addition to one of the above, redir to indicate that the title as given isn't the exact title of the article; it could represent a redirect, a disambiguation page, or an obvious mis-spelling. In any case, a reader should be able to find the target article easily.

Some additional markings were added when the list was generated in 2006:
 * Articles with no additional marking were from the original topics list (i.e. the 1911 EB had an article with that title)
 * Articles with * had the 1911 template (information from the 1911 EB was used in that article)
 * Articles with + were on both lists
 * Articles with = are redirects created in the past; they have not been verified