Jump to content

User:Taxman/Featured articles with possible references problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Taxman
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gillian Tipson (talk | contribs) at 13:12, 11 May 2005 (→Geography and places: the Buckinghamshire article is not "mostly lists" and I think the lists it has are appropriate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following articles in the first section are currently featured articles but no longer meet the featured article criteria because they do not cite their sources with properly formatted references. The articles in the second section do, but each article only has one or two references. Some of these articles may have used the links or further resources listed as actual references, but didn't explicitly state that so we don't know. Those could be easily fixed, so asking the page authors is necessary. I have moved the list of articles with other issues, such as ambiguous naming of the references section or improper formatting to featured articles with misc. references problems

Currently as many as 106 featured articles have no references at all. That means 18% of our best articles may have no references to back up the material they contain. From a critic's point of view they could be entirely made up. For further information see the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject and the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. Both projects are working on implementing the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. When I first collated this list the number was as high as 193, so significant progress is being made.

A number of these do have inline citations to external links, but I did not see them when checking through. Others may quote a source in the text, but not list it in a reference section. Please let me know about these and I will move them to the section denoting that they do at least have some form of referencing, even if not ideal. Then those can be properly formatted and other sources can hopefully be added too.

Please don't remove an article from this list once it has references, just add a note that you have added references and to what degree you have used them to verify or add material to the article.

A recent (Apr, 2005) review of those that were on this list found well over 20 that had been referenced at least some since my last check, and some that had been referenced very well. So it is working, and eventually we will get them all.

Those with none

Art and archaeology

  • Louis Armstrong - only external links, and a bibliography that may or may not have been used as references

Biology and medicine

Chemistry

  • LSD - Only external links, but some that easily seem to be able to be turned into references.
  • Linus Pauling - Only external links

Culture and society

Education

Economics

Food and drink

  • Kashrut - Only external links and further reading, that may have been used as references.

Geography and places

History

Language

Law

  • Common scold – Only external links. One of which is formatted properly as a reference, but not listed as such
  • Copyright – only one further reading

Literature

Media

Music

Philosophy

Physics, astrophysics and geophysics

  • Black hole – only external links and further reading
  • Richard Feynman – only external links. Some of the works listed could have been used.
  • Io (moon) – only external links

Politics and government

Psychology

all well referenced

Religion and beliefs

Sport and games

Technology

Transport

War

  • Attack on Pearl Harbor – extensive further reading, but none listed as references.
  • Battle of Normandy - several, called a”bibliography”. Were they used as references or are they just there for further reading?

References added and confirmed

I added citations to Newark. 11/29/04. dinopup
Thank you thank you thank you. But did you use them to actually verify the material in the article? Thats a real reference. Anything less is intellectually dishonest. - Taxman 18:53, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
User did confirm that on the talk page. - Taxman 16:09, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
Yesterday, the article had three external links (more now), two of which were to extremely proper and reputable web sources. I've formatted them and turned them into a references section. I have used them to verify the article (I'm not one of the authors). Neutrality removed the article from WP:FARC soon after I reported there that it now has references.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 19:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I read a bit of the NIH consensus statement and adjusted the article for that in one spot. I will try to continue with that, please do also if you can. - Taxman 23:30, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


Those with only inline references

These are articles that are referenced by at least some inline citations or mention another source. If you see any articles in the above list that do have inline references, please let me know and I'll move it here. These can be very easily turned into properly formatted references and will help remove many (hopefully) from the above list.

  • Yesterday – external links, and 6 inline citations.

Very few references

  • In this case I arbitrarily considered one or two references to be too few.

Notes:

  • Some article could have slipped through my check by having a section called references that were not used as actual references. I’m guessing this is fairly unlikely.
  • possibly create a new page in Wikipedia: called Referencing in Wikipedia to cover only the reasons why references are so important and collect links to info about referencing. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for that. It seems an uphill battle to convince people so we need to make sure the message gets out that articles need to be researched and cited.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Taxman/Featured_articles_with_possible_references_problems&oldid=13556675"