Wikipedia reliablity worksheet

Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet

Article title: Battle of Antietam

Answer the following questions to see how reliable a Wikipedia article is.

1. Start with the main page. Does it have any cleanup banners that have been placed there to indicate problems with the article? (A complete list is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/
   Cleanup.)

Any one of the following cleanup banners means the article is an unreliable source:

This article or section has multiple issues.	no
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.	no
The neutrality of this article is disputed.	no
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.	no
This needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.	no
This may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia.	no
This article only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject.	no
This article requires authentication or verification by an expert.	no
This article or section needs to be updated.	no
This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on a region.	no
This is missing citations or needs footnotes.	no
This article does not cite any references or sources.	no

2. Read through the article and see if it meets the following requirements:

Is it written in a clear and organized way?	yes
Is the tone neutral (not taking sides)?	yes
Are all important facts referenced (you're told where they come from)?	yes
Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)?	yes

 

3. Scroll down to the article's References and open them in new windows or tabs. Do they seem like reliable sources? (For help in determining the general reliability of a source, check out the Knowing What's What and What's Note: The 5 Ws (and 1 "H") of Cyberspace handout.)
   
   Reliable references:  All references seem accurate and see to come from textbook or reference manual with IBN numbers
   Possibly unreliable references: I do not see any listed
   
   Definitely unreliable references: I do not see any listed

 

4. Click on the Discussion tab. How is the article rated on the Rating Scale (Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, FA)? What issues around the article are being discussed? Do any of them make you doubt the article's reliability?

This article has been rated as GA-Class. I only see referenced updates for this article.

5. Based on the above questions, give the article an overall ranking of Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable.

• You may use a Reliable article as a source (but remember that even if a Wikipedia article is reliable, it should never be your only source on a topic!)
• You may use a Partially Reliable article as a starting point for your research, and may use some
  of its references as sources, but do not us it as a source.
• You should not use an Unreliable article as a source or a starting point. Research the same topic in a different encyclopedia.

How did you rank this article (Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable)? Give at least three reasons to support
your answer.

I find this article as very reliable. It has many references. The references are states clearly. The references seem to come from notable experts.

 

 

Users:

Brian Downey- Interests would indicate that he is very interested in History. However he does not have any background or history education. I would  still count him as a reliable source.

Mtsmallwood: has retired from Wikipedia

Hal Jespersen-  says is his a computer guy by trade. but has great interest in American Civil war.