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.
Jianping Wu et al., Structure of the voltage-gated calcium channel Ca<sub>v</sub>1.1 complex.Science 350, aad 2395 (2015). DOI: 10.1126/science.aad2395
This is an article published by the journal Science. It has some 3D protein modeling structures of the proteins with labels and tertiary and quaternary structures. A potential source for an image that we could add.
Nanou, E., & Catterall, W. A. (2018). Calcium channels, synaptic plasticity, and neuropsychiatric disease. Neuron, 98(3), 466-481. https://doi-org.byu.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.03.017
This article is a great location for basics of all of the questions that I've asked so far - it has information on the different types, pharmaceutical applications, history, and more. Great place to start and it's a review, so it's pulling from other articles.
Examples:
Luke, Learie. 2007. Identity and secession in the Caribbean: Tobago versus Trinidad, 1889–1980 Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
This is a book published by a university press, so it should be a reliable source. It also covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Galeano, Gloria; Bernal, Rodrigo (2013-11-08). "Sabinaria , a new genus of palms (Cryosophileae, Coryphoideae, Arecaceae) from the Colombia-Panama border". Phytotaxa.
This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source. It covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Baker, William J.; Dransfield, John (2016). "Beyond Genera Palmarum: progress and prospects in palm systematics". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society.
This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source for a specific fact. Since it only dedicates a few sentences to the topic, it can't be used to establish notability.
Questions that I'd like to find more sources to support:
- receptor operated Ca++ channels - are they only vasoconstriction? The intro fo rthe ligand section is not great. Below in the table it looks like there are types completely unrelated to vasoconstriction (i.e.sperm).
Pharmacology section - perhaps being with an intro along the ines of "differeat Ca++ channels are targetable to treat various medical problems..." Then jump into speciics? More sources defintiely need! Only 1 source for L-Type and 1 source for T-type.
In the talk sections, I noted that I was curious to see if we have enough information to begin a ligand-gated Ca++ channel page. What sources can we find to support that idea? Include those in the talk section.
What information can we find about multiple subunits? - see if the "Structure of the voltage-gated calcium channel 1.1 complex" article expands upon this.
Comment in the talk section - are all of the ligand gated and voltage gated channels in the correct tables? Provide more sources to confirm or deny with the single source currently listed. These lists might be totally outdated or irrelevant - find sources to corroborate.
Now that you have compiled a bibliography, it's time to plan out how you'll improve your assigned article.
In this section, write up a concise outline of how the sources you've identified will add relevant information to your chosen article. Be sure to discuss what content gap your additions tackle and how these additions will improve the article's quality.
Consider other changes you'll make to the article, including possible deletions of irrelevant, outdated, or incorrect information, restructuring of the article to improve its readability or any other change you plan on making. This is your chance to really think about how your proposed additions will improve your chosen article and to vet your sources even further.
Note: This is not a draft. This is an outline/plan where you can think about how the sources you've identified will fill in a content gap.
