User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck

1. If you need to find an OCLC number, go to WorldCat.org and use the "Find items in libraries near you" search. From the results, click the link for the item you're interested in. The output of that search also includes the OCLC Number, a little bit down the page.
2. Missing archive link: Archiving is not required, but is considered good practice. This is flagged even if an access date is present. To archive: Go to an articles History and click the "Fix dead links". On the "IABot Management Interface", find the small drop-down menu that says "Run Bot" and select "Fix a single page"). Type a Wikipedia article's title on the line that says "Page title to analyze" Be sure to check the checkbox labeled "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)". Run time for the bot can be from a few seconds to several minutes.
3. If the script displays some sort of an odd, incongruous error, such as "Missing pagenums for book chapter?" for a news article, check to see if you're using {{citation}} or {{cite book}} or whatever instead of {{cite news}}. Since this sort of template mismatch often may not change or disturb the output that the readers see, it may not be an urgent problem.

Use these warnings and error messages with a spoonful of caution and common sense. For one thing, editors have some discretion in whether they wish to use some template parameters. A good example is |location= for books: many editors considered these mandatory for books, because different publisher locations may produce different formats with different pagination. However, the only unbreakable rule is that usage must be consistent. This script generates a running count of books with and without publisher location. If one or more Inconsistent Location warnings are displayed, go to the last instance and look at its totals. If most (but not all) of the books cited include a location, suggest that the editor(s) fill in the missing location(s) as often as possible. If there are many without a location and a few with, you could suggest removing those few. [Or just go ahead and suggest they fill them all in. Consider it a public service].

Another example is the messages regarding adding access date and archive urls/dates. Editors have even more discretion with these than they do with |location=. Per WP:CITE, |access-date= is only required for web sources without a known publication date. In practice, moreover, some relatively stable urls (e.g., those from Google Books) may not need access dates either. In general, however, try to encourage consistency, because access dates are often very useful. Access dates aid automated tools (and humans) in locating the correct version of an archived web page, or in adding archive links in the future. Even with relatively stable resources like Google Books, there's no future guarantee that the source will remain accessible, so the access date is an indication that at least at one time that it was.

Note that P/PP error? is the check that seems to display the greatest number of false positives. There's simply no way to cover all the possible variations that could be displayed. Treat this as marking "something to check; it could well be wrong" rather than a definitive error.

Also note that sometimes you also need to apply a little knowledge of the outside world. A relatively amicable historian would be amused/bemused to see Missing first name for: Suetonius:

• Suetonius (2008), Edwards, Catherine (ed.), Lives of the Caesars, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780191609107

Bede (860). "St. Gallen Stiftsbibliothek Cod. Sang. 254. Jerome, Commentary on the Old Testament book of Isaiah. Includes the most authentic version of the Old English "Death Song" by the Venerable Bede". Europeana Regia. Retrieved 5 June 2013.

Correct use of the |location= requires consistency, while references such as {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} need to be sorted systematically if they are grouped together in their own dedicated section. Correct use of |location= parameters depends on whether or not other sources on the page include that parameter, and correct placement of a reference within sort order depends on the sort order of the references above it. For this reason, the programming logic for both "Inconsistent use of Location" and "Sort error, expected: <identifier>" displays error messages that are cascading .

For the sort errors, the first reference listed out of sort order causes that reference and perhaps many or all subsequent ones to display the error message. The first reference listed out of sort order will often throw others below it out of sort order too. If there are several, start from the top and work down when correcting. Fixing one or two might clear many errors. This is a cascading error; when fixing, start at the first instance & go down.

It is very strongly suggested that the |location= field be populated, but one could argue that it is not, strictly speaking, absolutely required. However, there is a requirement that it be employed (or not employed) consistently. As a case in point, this version of our article on "Slavery" has (looking at last instance in the running total) "Inconsistent Location (16 with; 141 without)". If that article were in FAC it might be possible (but notvery advisable) to delete the 16 locations.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,^[1] consectetur adipiscing elit,^[2] sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.^[3] Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.^[4]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.^[5] Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,^[6] sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.