<nowiki>*</nowiki>Is the source from a reliable publication*Yes it can be a reliable source. It talks about the injuries about around the time injuries usually happen.
<nowiki>*</nowiki>is the source verifiable?* No it most definitely is not verifiable yet.
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Is the source independent of the subject?* Yes the source is completely connected to the subject and supports the subject and is a really good article.
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Is the source a primary or secondary* well its not all original content there is a lot in there that you can tell is edited but it is still a very good source to use. {{dashboard.wikiedu.org bibliography/guide}}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Is the source a primary or secondary* well its not all original content there is a lot in there that you can tell is edited but it is still a very good source to use. {{dashboard.wikiedu.org bibliography/guide}}
Revision as of 18:12, 27 February 2023
*Is the source a primary or secondary* well its not all original content there is a lot in there that you can tell is edited but it is still a very good source to use.
Bibliography
As you gather the sources for your Wikipedia contribution, think about the following:
Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about living persons. Please follow these carefully.
Wikipedia has a series of guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.
If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.
This is where you will compile the bibliography for your Wikipedia assignment. Add the name and/or notes about what each source covers, then use the "Cite" button to generate the citation for that source.
Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents [J Biol Regul Homeost Agents] 2020 Jul-Aug; Vol. 34 (4 Suppl. 3), pp. 163-170. Congress of the Italian Orthopaedic Research Society.
