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.
"The Wilbour Papyrus". Brooklyn Museum. Retrieved March 1, 2023.
The Brooklyn museum's website only containing a photo of a piece of the papyrus and information regarding it's current state.
Katary, Sally (2014). "The Wilbour Papyrus and the Management of the Nile Riverbanks in Ramesside Egypt: Preliminary Analysis of the Types of Cultivated Land". BAR (British Archeological Reports) International. 2587. Oxford: Archeopress – via academia.edu.
A journal article discussing the taxation and administrative divisions of the new kingdom through the lense of the Wilbour papyrus
Gardiner, Alan, ed. (1941). The Wilbour Papyrus. Vol. 1. Chiswick Press, London: Oxford University Press.
The first publication of the papyrus as photographs in the first volume
Gardiner, Alan, ed. (1948). The Wilbour Papyrus. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press.
Commentary on the Papyrus, the first analysis of the content ever published. It is by the original translator.
Antoine, Jean-Christophe (2014). "Social position and the organisation of landholding in Ramesside Egypt: An analysis of the Wilbour Papyrus". Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur. Helmut Buske Verlag GmbH. 43: 17–46 – via JSTOR.
A jorunal article discussing the social class of plot holders in the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt through the content of the papyrus
Katary, Sally (2001). "Labour on Smallholdings in the New Kingdom: O. BM 5627 In Light of P. Wilbour". The Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities. 28 – via academia.edu.
A short useful bit of information in here is the translations of the different types of plots gone over in the Papyrus
