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.
Rosenstone, Robert A., 1995. The Historical Film As Real History. Film-Historia, Vol. V, No.1 (1995): 5-23 https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/filmhistoria/article/view/12244
This is an article 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.
David, A., professor of cognitive neuropsychiatry. National Library of Medicine. A Beautiful Mind. February 23, 2002. v.324(7335). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122415/
This is an article issued by a government agency, so it should be a reliable source. It also covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Gregg, Courtney N., 2016, TRUE LIFE STORY: MYTHMAKING IN BIOGRAPHICAL FILMS. Middle Tennessee State University. https://jewlscholar.mtsu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/f4720101-81e7-419b-b31d-b4dcf31ec2ed/content
This is an article 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.
‘Bohemian Rhapsody,’ and Why Even Flawed Biopics Kind of Rule. (2018, November 7). Rolling Stone. Retrieved from https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/bohemian-rhapsody-freddie-mercury-queen-biopic-flawed-rami-malek-752618/.
This is an article published by a reputable magazine, so it should be a reliable source. It also covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
