User:ONUnicorn/NPPS/HistoryTheorist

Hello @HistoryTheorist:, and thank you for your interest in NPP school. I have set up this page for us to use for the training. I suggest you add this page to your watchlist.

I know the next week or so is the holiday season, and you said you want to start after the new year, so don't feel pressured to get started right away. That said, I'd like to begin to get a baseline read on your expectations for NPP school and what your starting skills and knowledge are like, so below are a few starting questions for you to respond to at your leisure.

I've put my questions in bold. Please put your answers in regular text to make it easy to distinguish question from answer. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 06:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done I might end up editing some of my responses later but @ONUnicorn:, here they are. When I said I wanted to start in the new year, I meant that I'll be on vacation (see my user/talk page) from Dec 27 to 31 and probably not on Wikipedia. I might be semi active Dec 25 but less than usual. If you are not busy during the holiday season, I can do some NPP activities in the interim but really get started in the new year. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Getting to know you

• Q. You've been active on Wikipedia for about 6 months now, and I see you've tried your hand at a few different things. What has been the most interesting or rewarding thing you've done here so far?
  • A. The most interesting and rewarding thing I've done is create 2 articles (Nelson Santana and Uwe Holmer) with little help. It's fun doing your own research on a topic so obscure that there's no article on the English Wikipedia but notable enough to merit its own page. I also doubled the length of Stuart Epperson, and although I don't agree with a lot of his politics, it was pretty fun improving the article about him.
    • Y Thanks. Researching, learning about new topics, and writing about them is very rewarding, one of my favorite things to do here, and New Page Patrol can work well for people with that kind of drive. I enjoyed reading Nelson Santana and Uwe Holmer. As we progress you will see that New Page Patrol has a tension between being quick and being thorough. Both are needed. I tend to err on the side of being through, and if I find a horrible article but I am able to research and rewrite it so it's acceptable, I'd rather do that than delete it. Hammerton Killick, Children's Village, and Komboni are some examples of articles I found on New Page Patrol and fixed up. You will find that is not true of all reviewers - and there is nothing wrong with that. Keep in mind that there are several different styles of patrolling, and to some extent you'll need to find what works for you. If finding the hidden gems that need work motivates you, then by all means, use that motivation.
• Q. I see you've tried a few editing tools like AntiVandal, RedWarn, Twinkle, and HotCat. What do you like and what do you dislike about these tools?
  • A. With AntiVandal, I like that the diffs of edits are front and center, and I do not have to click on diff to see the edits. I also like that I can quickly revert and warn users about vandalism, but the downside of this is that AV sometimes goes too fast and I may hastily revert a good faith edit. I haven't completely mastered the system and eventually gave up after I made some mistakes. RedWarn and Twinkle are basically the same tool to me, except that RW has a more modern interface and has more options to warn users about vandalism which I really like. However, for welcoming users, I can't resist but use Twinkle. HotCat is a really handy tool because I don't have to go digging for categories; I can enter a keyword and the relevant categories come to me.
    • YI'm glad that you have seen that sometimes tools can be helpful, and sometimes they can lead to going too fast. For a long time I was hesitant to use tools, and only installed Twinkle after I became an admin and I still don't use its full range of functions. Once you have the New Page Reviewer userright you will have a toolbar that appears on the side when looking at a new page. It can be really helpful, but can also (as I've found with a lot of tools) lead to an over-reliance on canned, templated messages for communication. Sometimes the templated messages are fine, but often it's better to leave messages for page creators in your own words. It's also good to know how to do things like create an AFD manually, even if you use the tool 90% of the time. (And really, once you've done an AFD manually 2-3 times, for Heaven's sake, use the tool after that! It's much easier and less prone to missing a step.)
• Q. Why are you interested in New Page Patrolling? What are you hoping to get out of our time together?
  • A. I'm interested in New Page Patrolling because I want to try something different and I see that there's a huge backlog and a huge backlog drive but I don't feel confident enough to attempt to do NPP work on my own. I also hope that by reviewing other people's work, I become a better article creator myself. What I hope to get out of NPP school is a better grasp on content policies and more confidence assessing and hopefully assisting others create articles. I already have an idea on how to do both, but I want to get more practice and learn from a more experienced user.
    • YGreat! Hopefully this will be a good experiance for you.
• Q. You've done some counter-vandalism work. Please describe your process. How do you determine if an edit is vandalism, good faith but inappropriate, or acceptable? How do you respond to the editor who made the edit? How does your response differ for each of the three types of edit?
  • A. Edits that are vandalism include profanity (unless it has some relevance to the source), blanking and getting rid of sources, nonsense, explicit images, and removing information from well-established sources. Good faith but inappropriate edits are edits that add information that might be true but do not provide a source. Another type of edit that I would put under this category are POV edits that are attempts to add the "truth" but are unacceptable because they violate NPOV guidelines, and similarly, COI edits that add unsourced information that violate NPOV. Acceptable edits are constructive edits that change grammar, update pages, and include refs, even if they are bare urls. If I see an edit that I believe is pure and simple vandalism, I will instantly revert it and send a warning. Continual vandalism will be sent to AIV or RfPP. I would probably do the same thing for extremely POV edits that might have a grain of good faith but are probably vandalism. The way I would tell apart vandalism from good faith but POV edits are how the user responds. If the user ignores the warnings and reinstates the edit without giving a reliable source or if they are really not civil, I'll consider the edit vandalism. However, if the user asks for a reason, is civil, and explains why they made the edit, I will consider their edit to be a good faith edit that didn't completely meet Wikipedia standards. I will usually try to be more gentle with users who are trying to improve Wikipedia and give them specific advice to improve their edits so that they meet WP standards.
    • YFor the most part, this is a good answer. I will note that you included various types of content removal ("blanking and getting rid of sources" and "removing information from well-established sources" as vandalism. While content removal is often vandalism, it can also be good faith but inappropriate, and sometimes it is acceptable. For example, imagine the article is a biography of a living person, and a new account is continually removing the sourced date of birth. There are times that conduct is entirely appropriate, and times it is a sign of a good-faith editor with a conflict of interest. Unless it's really obvious, try to assume good faith and talk to the person.

• Q. When you revert and warn someone as part of anti-vandalism work, do you keep an eye on their talk page and contributions to see if they respond to your warning? If not, why?
  • A. If there's a user that I think has made especially promising edits (I also use recent changes to welcome new users as well) or has made especially bad vandalism, I may check my watch list to see what has become of them. I don't regularly check my watchlist, but it's becoming more and more of a habit.
    • YWhen I'm doing New Page Patrol, or leaving newer users messages for any reason, I typically try to go back and check their talk page the next day to see if they've responded. I don't normally keep the page on my watchlist as that can become overcrowded. Newer users tend to struggle with talk pages, especially if they primarily edit on mobile. It's important to be aware of the mobile communication bugs, although a lot of them have been fixed in the last year or so. Newer users don't normally know how to ping people, so checking back is important.

• Q. If you haven't already, please read the behavioral guidelines Don't bite the newbies and Assume Good Faith. In your own words, explain what these mean to you. Please focus on the context of counter vandalism and new page work, but feel free to include a broader view of those policies.
  • A. What these policies to me is that all users are human beings (hopefully not bots) and most are looking to improve the encyclopedia, even if their edits are not perfect. Therefore, I should be patient and lend a helping hand when they ask for help. I should also be quick to forgive and be humble, as I am not a perfect editor (I hope to become better with every edit though), and the new editor might be right where I am wrong. Together, we can help Wikipedia become a better place. With regards to NPP, this can include gently providing specific suggestions to improve a draft that is almost up to WP standards but not quite. It can also mean going in and improving the draft myself, although I would want the creator of the draft to make improvements themself and intervention would be a last resort. If a draft has no potential of ever becoming an article, giving specific reasons why without trying to be too discouraging (a difficult balance) is a good way of being gentle to the newcomers. However, I don't think that AGF means tolerating vandalism and incivility. If an editor isn't looking to improve Wikipedia and is hurling libel and insults, they should be shown the door.
    • YGreat answer! Keeping in mind that everyone you're dealing with is a person (even bots are operated by people) and treating them with kindness and human dignity can go a long way to smoothing things over. The one thing I will point out is that with NPP, we are not dealing with drafts. We are dealing with articles that were either created directly in article space, or have been moved there from draft space. We often send things back to draft space, but when we come accross them, they are in mainspace.

That's all for now. Once you've answered these questions we'll move on to the next lesson. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 06:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

2. The basics of New Page Patrol

This next lesson will focus on the basics - the purpose of New Page Patrol and the standards articles should be held to.

• Q. If you haven't already, please read the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, the core content policies, and what Wikipedia is not. Now, read the general notability guideline. In your own words, please explain how the notability guideline relates to the core content policies and the 5 pillars.
  • A. If a subject is not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines, then it is very difficult to follow core content policies. There would be little information that comes from reliable secondary sources and there is more room for original research. Thus, pages about non-notable topics would have little to stand on and could erode Wikipedia's accuracy. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is an encyclopedia. If all the non-notable subjects had their own Wikipedia pages, then Wikipedia would devolve into an indiscriminate collection of information.
    • Y I was really looking for you to demonstrate an understanding that the notability guideline is a logical outflowing of the five pillars and the content policies. That if we say "things in this encyclopedia must be able to be verified by reference to things outside the encyclopedia," and "this is not a place to publish original thought", then it is logical to then say "in order to qualify for an article, there must be multiple sources that provide information about the thing." And if we say, "articles must be written from a neutral point of view" it is then logical to say, "sources that are biased by virtue of having been written by the article subject are not sufficient to craft a neutral article, therefore independent sources are required." It's useful to note that the foundations of what would become the core content policies were present as early as February 2001, only a month into Wikipedia's existence. Notability as a separate concept did not begin to take form until 2005. Whenever you are looking for a better understanding of pretty much any page in Wikipedia, be it an article, draft, policy, guideline, essay - whatever, it's often a useful and entertaining exercise to check the history of the page and see how it has evolved over time.
• Q. In your own words, please explain what notability is in the Wikipedia context. How does one know if something is notable?
  • A. A subject is notable if there are multiple (about 3, but preferably much more) reliable AND secondary sources covering the subject with some depth.
    • Y You forgot that the sources must also be independent. I have some follow up questions for you. These are questions that page authors often want answered when pages are nominated for deletion, sent to draft, declined at AFC, or even just tagged with maintenance tags. It's important to be able to explain these policies and terms and the why of them to people who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia.
      • Q. Do the sources have to be cited in the article in order for the topic to be notable?
        • A. No, an editor can do a really really sloppy job citing sources, but the topic could be notable. If a topic looks notable but the hypothetical article cites no sources, the first thing I'd do is look of the sources and then add citations to them to establish a topic's notability. If no sources can be found through a Google search, a search through a library catalogue, and a library database, I would question the notability of the source but ask somebody else to look for sources through other avenues I don't have access to. If nothing shows up, the subject is definitely not notable.
          • Y Yep, you have correctly recognized that it is the existance of potential sources that makes something notable, not if said sources are cited or not. You then went on to describe step D of the mandatory checks to make WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
      • Q. In your own words, what makes a source a reliable source? What makes it a secondary source?
        • A. A reliable source is NOT a blog, YouTube video, or any other self-published medium. Any YouTube videos must come from reputable and established scholars and news sites. Reliable sources can come from reputable and established news institutions, peer-reviewed scholarly journals (for medicine), well-established publishing houses. Authors of books must have relevant credentials and a history of producing high-quality works. Some sources might have a POV but still can be reliable like the New York Times. Other sources sacrifice facts for POV or juicy gossip like most tabloids. Secondary sources are sources which are published by independent authors who are not writing to promote a product or have been paid by the subject.
        • Y Listing things that are not reliable sources doesn't really show you understand what makes a source reliable. You do touch on a source's reputation (which is an important factor in determining reliability), as well as if it is established. Peer reviewed scholarly journals are not just for medicine - they are the gold standard for any topic. N You have confused secondary sources with independant sources. They are not the same thing. I'll try to work on a lesson to clarify these concepts for you.
      • Q. Define covering a subject in depth.
        • A. Covering a subject in depth means not giving a cursory mention of a subject (for example, a news source mentions the name of a company once and never elaborates) but in-depth coverage means providing meaningful information about the subject. While in-depth coverage does not mean that the source gives comprehensive facts about all aspects of the subject, but an article should focus on the subject and provide necessary context.
          • Y Yep. Good job.
• Q. Please review the section of the notability guideline dealing with subject-specific notability guidelines, then review the subject specific notability guidelines in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. Pick 3 subject specific notability guidelines and explain how they relate to the general notability guideline.
  • A. People -- (in general) For Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of people, notability criteria like whether they've held national office, have won an important prize, were the victim of a crime which had historic consequences, etc., these specific notability criteria usually mean that the subject will receive reliable and independent coverage because of their role in important and historical events.

Geographic Features -- Interstates, towns, cities, national parks (just to name a few) are all considered notable by Wikipedia because their status as an Interstate, etc. exposes them to reliable, in depth, and independent secondary coverage.

Weather -- "Rare" tornadoes, storms that have had their name retired, and disasters that have widespread impact/damage are considered notable by Wikipedia because these catastrophic events generate significant news coverage and meets general notability guidelines.

• • • Y Very good. What I was looking for was exactly what you provided. You understand that the subject-specific notability guidelines are not alternatives to meeting the general notability guidelines, rather they are giant red flags saying, "if this and that is true about this type of subject, it meets the GNG and the sources are out there, go find them."
• Q. Read Wikipedia:New pages patrol. In your own words, what do you think is the purpose of New Page patrol? Why is it important to understand the notability guidelines and content policies when doing New Page patrol?
  • A. The purpose of NPP is to act like a basic quality control mechanism. Reviewed articles don't need to be perfect, but they need to follow policies and guidelines or be easily revised to conform to policy. NPP makes sure that there's no hoaxes, vandalism, or other nonsense being published on Wikipedia and helps Wikipedia stay true to its mission of being a free encyclopedia. Thus, reviewers should know Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding notability and content to discern between a nonsense article and an article which might need work but is notable enough for Wikipedia.
    • Y Yep. Pretty much.
• Q. Would step by step instructions on how to change a car tire be an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article? Why or why not? Which policies and guidelines are involved in determining that?
  • A. No, Wikipedia is not a manual. Mentioning that tires need to be replaced is appropriate for an article like tire, but does not need to go into detail.
    • Y Yep.
• Q. If someone creates an article for the 2036 Summer Olympics that cites no sources, is the topic notable? Why or why not? Which policies and guidelines would you use to determine that? Would you look to anything outside of Wikipedia in determining if that topic is notable?
  • A. If I were to review that hypothetical article, I would first assume that the person who created it did a really sloppy job with sourcing and look for a bunch of reliable sources that I could use to improve the ref work. Once the references have been added, and the article now meets general notability guidelines and is not a one-sentence stub, I would "approve" the article. However, let's assume I am unable to find enough reliable secondary sources to back up said article. In this specific case, I would determine that the hypothetical article will be notable because it covers the Olympics, but right now it's too soon to be included.
    • Y Very good. I'm glad you didn't say it wasn't notable just because it didn't cite sources. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. That said, before the host city has been chosen (which it has not yet for the 2036 games), there isn't enough sourced information for an article and it is indeed too soon.

I think that's enough for now. Once you've answered these questions, I'll try to find a few example articles for you to work with. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 05:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've finished answering all the questions. As always, I might go back and edit my responses if I suddenly become enlightened. With all the specific subject notability guidelines, I get the main point, but especially on the guidelines for academics, I got really bogged down on all the specific details. I think that practice will help me master the finer points of these guidelines and will help me see how these guidelines work in real life. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

For the most part, good job. I've added a few follow up questions to the second question, if you want to go ahead and answer those. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 06:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done (for now) I've finished answering your follow-up questions but will plan on working on your examples later. Right now, I want to work on a re-write for Ida McKinley in my userspace. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Some example articles

Imagine you are doing new page patrol and come accross these articles. How would you evaluate their notability, and what do you think you would do with them? (note: these are all actually in the queue right now as I type this; so some of them may get deleted or sent to draft before you review them. If so I'll try to find a replacement or retrieve the text for purposes of this exercise.)

• 2025 Gulfport mayoral election
  • A. Elections generally tend to be more notable, however, I wasn't able to find anything substantive for this election. There is no Wikipedia article for any of the other Gulfport Mayoral Elections, which is a yellow flag for me. As of now, there are no sources cited, but perhaps if we get a bit closer to the actual date, we will find enough sources to establish its notability.(see WP:TOOSOON.) I'd probably draftify the article because there is very little substance and zero sources, but there is a small chance that it could become a full-blown article.
    • Y Very good. Note also that this is a municipal election; not a state or national campaign, meaning it is less likely to be notable, especially this far in advance. I would be more inclined to AFD it than to draftify, as it is still so far before the election, and indeed, that is what the new page reviewer did. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Gulfport mayoral election. However, draftifying it would be a valid and defensible action, and arguably less bitey.
• Blair Street Bridge
  • A. The bridge is not terribly notable, but I think it barely passes the Wikipedia test. Although the article needs inline sources, I evaluated the sources given at the bottom. The sources don't cover the subject with a great amount of depth, but each source in my opinion has covered the subject in enough depth that together, an acceptable Wikipedia article could be constructed. I wish that there was more source diversity, but it's alright. I'd probably add some inline sources but I wouldn't delete the article.
    • Y Again, very good. The sources are sufficient and there is no need to delete the article. Adding inline sources would be best practice, but if you are short on time, merely tagging it with {{no footnotes}} and marking it reviewed is sufficient.
• Lawrence J. Ryan
  • A. I would probably nominate it for deletion. The subject really didn't do much to merit notability according to Wikipedia's policies on academics, although some of his alleged activities could arguably make him marginally notable. However, I wasn't able to find sources for these alleged activities! Somebody could have made it up or the subject could have COI-edited it.
    • N So, you make some good points and have some ideas, but you seem to be missing some context. First, you say he "didn't do much to merit notability according to Wikipedia's policies on academics", however you neglect to notice that during his career he was awarded two notable fellowships, meeting criteria 2 and 3 of WP:NACADEMIC. You also need to look at the context of when he was active. He began his career in 1958 and retired in 1996, doing most of his important academic work between 1957-1974. That will make it difficult to use some of the more common short cuts for gauging notability of academics, such as the citation indexes. (Scopus is incomplete before 1996, Web of Science doesn't have much in the humanities prior to 1975, and Google Scholar is almost useless for humanities, especially for anything this old.) That said, you can search WorldCat to see how widely held his books are in world libraries. That search does pull up some unrleated work by a scholar with the same name, but once we locate his books we find this one in 216 libraries, and this one in 346, which isn't bad for 50 year old scholarly works about German literature. Given the age and the fact that his field of study was German literature, I would imagine many sources would be off-line and may be in German. They may be a little harder to find. The article does cite enough sources to verify that the subject exists, won the Guggenheim Fellowship, and taught at 2 of the universities the article says he taught at, so this wasn't made up (See WP:G3 and WP:A11). With him being long retired, I doubt this is an effort to promote him, and somehow I don't see a 91 year old man sitting down and writing this about himself. Lastly, this was accepted through AFC. When doing New Page Patrol, I do tend to give some deference to the opinion of the AFC reviewer, if it was accepted at AFC. We do still need to check such articles, as sometimes AFC gets it wrong, and there have been instances of unethical paid editing rings creating accounts to work at AFC and accept their own articles (they also have created accounts to get NPP rights and patrol their own articles too), but if in doubt I tend to defer to the judgement of the AFC reviewer who accepted it. In this instance, I think the right call is the one the reviewer made, which is to mark it reviewed and move on.
• Aarati (TV series)
  • A. I would probably bring in somebody else who could read the foreign-language sources to see if it's notable and assess the source reputation. Although there is some rudimentary information about the show, there is no claim to notability in the article. I looked up the TV show and couldn't find anything else outside of some YouTube videos and IMDB, which are not super reliable sources. There could be some notability with this TV show but I don't know what it is notable for. If my instincts prove me right, I would send the article to AfD.
    • Y Your instincts are good here. The sources cited in the article all appear to be credited to unnamed "correspondent" (Google translate is sufficient to determine that), and if you look at the Contributions of the main editor, they seem to be a single purpose account editing exclusively about this show and the actors in it (They've since been blocked and their creations are at AFD).

 Done As always, I might come back to revise my stances. Note: after the new year, I might not be terribly active on weekdays but I should be able to keep up with the NPPS lessons. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone thorough your anwsers and responded to them. I'll try to get a lesson up focusing some more on Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources to try to clarify the difference between secondary sources and independent sources for you. That scholar of German literature was one I picked specifically because you had mentioned struggling with the guidelines on academics, so I hope it was helpful. Let me know if there is anything you like, don't like, or would like to see more of in what we're doing. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 06:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't feel super confident about the German academic, partially because I'm new to the databases thing and I don't know what's out there. I'm pretty US-centric in my searching, and academics aren't my cup of tea. I would like more practice and guidance later but I gotta go to bed now. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 06:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

3. Types of sources: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, Independent, Affiliated, Reliable, Unreliable

Above you seem to have been somewhat confused as to the meaning of terms like secondary sources and independent sources. Please read Wikipedia:No original research, paying special attention to the section on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Please also read the Wikipedia articles Primary source, Secondary source, and Tertiary source. Now, read Wikipedia:Independent sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

For each hypothetical source below, please determine if it would be considered a primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source. Then determine if it is independent or affiliated, and lastly if it would be a reliable source for our purposes or not.

• In an article on the Battle of Gettysburg; a memorandum from Gen. Robert E. Lee to Lt. Gen. James Longstreet conveying his orders for troop movements.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• The same memorandum from Gen. Robert E. Lee to Lt. Gen. James Longstreet, but this time it is being used in the article about Robert E. Lee.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• The same memorandum from Gen. Robert E. Lee to Lt. Gen. James Longstreet, but this time it is being used in the article about Lt. Gen. James Longstreet.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• In an article on the Battle of Gettysburg; a book written in the 1950s by a professor of military history teaching at Westpoint drawing on sources including surviving written orders from commanders in the field, contemporary newspaper accounts of the battle, and letters of soldiers written after the battle.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• A similar book, drawing on similar sources, written in 2012 by a hobbyist with no formal education and published by Vantage Press.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• In an article on the Battle of Gettysburg; the 1912 Encyclopedia Brittanica article on the Battle of Gettysburg.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• In an article about Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), a peer-reviewed paper describing an experiment conducted by the authors of the paper that involved giving either LSD or a placebo to patients suffering from PTSD, and outlining their results.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• In the same article about LSD, a literature review published in a peer-reviewed journal, comparing the results of several different peer-reviewed studies on the effects of LSD on patients suffering from PTSD.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• In the same article about LSD, a newspaper article from the New York Times talking about the findings of the literature review, and hyping the prospects of using LSD to treat PTSD.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• In an article about a company; the company's annual financial disclosure statement for 2023.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• In the same article about the company; the company's annual product catalogue, which includes a section on the company's history, marketing materials about their new products, and a letter from their president about the exciting direction the company is taking in 2024.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• In the same article about the company, an article in the New York Times about the company, what kind of year it had last year, and its prospects moving forward. The New York Times draws on sources including the company's annual financial disclosure statement, the company's annual catalogue, interviews with executives and employees of the company, interviews with the company's competitors, and analysis by the Times' business columnist.
  • Would this be a Primary source, a secondary source, or a tertiary source for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered an independent source, affiliated source, or neither for this article, and why?
    • A.
  • Would this be considered a reliable source for our purposes or not and why?
    • A.
• In your own words, please describe the difference between the concepts of primary secondary and tertiary sources, and the concept of independent and non-independence of sources. How does each relate to a source's reliability and lack thereof?
  • A.