Help:Content validity: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "It is important that all information provided to an AquaPedia case study is *clear *consise *accurate as possible Most case study sections require that the author maintain a..." |
No edit summary |
||
(No difference)
| |||
Latest revision as of 23:19, 6 March 2013
It is important that all information provided to an AquaPedia case study is
- clear
- consise
- accurate as possible
Most case study sections require a neutral or balanced point of view, as any user can edit and improve content.
Individual ASI articles linked to specific case studies allow individual contributors (authors) to provide qualified statements, researched opinions, and other non-neutral information, insight, or wisdom on a topic.
Cases or Case Sections that do not
- provide sufficient references
- appear to be neutrally presented
may be flagged by a another user as requiring additional fact-checking, edits for clarity/factuality, or other improvements to improve the validity of the content.