Ad
related to: criteria for reviewing a website- Book your free Webinar
How to improve your online ranking
for a fraction of agency costs!
- Get your Free account now
Protect your Brand and activate
our Brand watch monitoring for free
- Free Edition Available
Limited Time offer
Claim my free edition
- SEO Reseller Program
Find out more about our Reseller
option to enhance your portfolio
- Book your free Webinar
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
How to review a Good article nomination. First things to look for. Assessing the article and providing a review. Mistakes to avoid in reviews. Giving problems, not solutions. Imposing your personal criteria. Passing articles that do not meet the Good article criteria. Dealing with disputes. Get a second opinion.
The six good article criteria. A good article is: reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
A review site is a website on which reviews can be posted about people, businesses, products, or services. These sites may use Web 2.0 techniques to gather reviews from site users or may employ professional writers to author reviews on the topic of concern for the site.
The CRAAP test is a test to check the objective reliability of information sources across academic disciplines. CRAAP is an acronym for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. [1] Due to a vast number of sources existing online, it can be difficult to tell whether these sources are trustworthy to use as tools for research.
Criteria for evaluating reliability. The reliability of Wikipedia articles can be measured by the following criteria: Vandalism of a Wikipedia article. The section on the left is the normal, undamaged version; and on the right is the vandalized, damaged version. Accuracy of information provided within articles.
Contents. Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC. Source checking is a critical part of the WP:FAC review process. The purpose of this essay is to help editors carry out effective source reviews; article authors may also find the advice helpful. All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources, but at FAC the bar is set higher.
An American websites with focus on "political bias" and "factual reporting". [219] [220].Metabunk: A discussion forum setup by Mick West that covers such topics as pseudoscience, UFOs and the paranormal. The website also includes a forum, "Skydentify", where West invites people to send photos and videos of UFOs and supposed ghosts. NPR Fact Check.
Before nominating: review your own article. The easiest way to avoid problems with a nomination is to put yourself in the reviewer's position. Read the guidelines on reviewing Good articles and the Good article criteria, and check that if you were reviewing your own article, you would pass it. Do not think of your goal purely in terms of ...
Ad
related to: criteria for reviewing a website