I've listed some common Articles for Creation sourcing mistakes below. Please do not assume this page is exhaustive. Some sources not here might be problematic, and some patterns that are usually mistakes can be okay. Additionally, note that this is intended to describe sources that contribute to whether your draft will be accepted. If you need to use a source that doesn't meet these criteria to cite some uncontroversial fact, like a birthday or year of founding or the members of a band, that is usually fine.
As a general rule: reviewers will look for at least 2-3 high quality sources, which means reputable sources completely independent from the subject with at least a couple paragraphs of substantial coverage.
Rule of thumb: does the author have any motivation to make the subject look good? If they were critical of the subject, would they be allowed to publish? (Or, less often: motivation to make the subject look bad/if they were positive about the subject?). Common non-independent sources used include:
Rule of thumb: at minimum 2-3 paragraphs/15+ sentences primarily about the subject. No matter how good a source is, one sentence that mentions the subject once is not going to make it a high quality source about this subject.
Rule of thumb: Is there review of the content (editor, peer review, fact checkers, etc)? Is the source going against mainstream consensus on a subject (you can still use it, but it needs to be marked as an opinionated source)?
Parts of this criteria are inherently subjective, and sources that are reliable for one subject may not be reliable for another. If in doubt, try reading the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, searching for your source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, or asking a question at the noticeboard.
I've listed some common Articles for Creation sourcing mistakes below. Please do not assume this page is exhaustive. Some sources not here might be problematic, and some patterns that are usually mistakes can be okay. Additionally, note that this is intended to describe sources that contribute to whether your draft will be accepted. If you need to use a source that doesn't meet these criteria to cite some uncontroversial fact, like a birthday or year of founding or the members of a band, that is usually fine.
As a general rule: reviewers will look for at least 2-3 high quality sources, which means reputable sources completely independent from the subject with at least a couple paragraphs of substantial coverage.
Rule of thumb: does the author have any motivation to make the subject look good? If they were critical of the subject, would they be allowed to publish? (Or, less often: motivation to make the subject look bad/if they were positive about the subject?). Common non-independent sources used include:
Rule of thumb: at minimum 2-3 paragraphs/15+ sentences primarily about the subject. No matter how good a source is, one sentence that mentions the subject once is not going to make it a high quality source about this subject.
Rule of thumb: Is there review of the content (editor, peer review, fact checkers, etc)? Is the source going against mainstream consensus on a subject (you can still use it, but it needs to be marked as an opinionated source)?
Parts of this criteria are inherently subjective, and sources that are reliable for one subject may not be reliable for another. If in doubt, try reading the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, searching for your source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, or asking a question at the noticeboard.