Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet

Article Title :Deinosuchus

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

yes

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)?	no
Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)?

no

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: Definitions that seem to be factual.




Possibly unreliable references: Wikipedia




Definitely unreliable references: Wikipedia

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?
1. They say this is a featured article.

   ---

2. Has been identified as one of the best articles from Wikipedia community.
3. Deinosuchus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles.

   ---

4. The facts make me believe the article is reliable.
5. A collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology.

   ---

6. Rated FA-class on project scale.
7. Information looks factual..

   ---

8. Written by important people.
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 rate this source partially reliable. I feel that this source has factual information. It also is ranked in the FA class. This article has also been identified as one of the best articles in Wikipedia Community. This shows me its a good article. They seem to be using a collaborative effort to improve palaeontology. I like science and this seems to be an interesting topic. I think this article overall is pretty reliable but it does not have a lot of sources or footnotes.