Wikipedia backlinks: evaluate a citation before proposing it
Fictional, unverified exercise about English Wikipedia. These translations do not replace another language edition’s rules. No edit, citation or backlink is submitted.
Work through the catalogue example
Fictional, unverified exercise about English Wikipedia. These translations do not replace another language edition’s rules. No edit, citation or backlink is submitted.
Published source
Fictional catalogue, page 18; verification is incomplete.
Narrow claim
The workshop made glazed tiles in 1908; no invention claim.
Editorial review
Consider relevance, balance and disclosed relationships independently.
- Published source Supports only the specified statement Narrow claim
- Narrow claim Proposed for consideration, not automatically accepted Editorial review
| Inspection step | Example observation | Evidence to record | Action if it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exact support | Fictional catalogue page 18 describes tiles made in 1908 | Specific passage, author, date and proposed sentence | Consider only the narrow statement after real source verification |
| Commercial substitute | Reproduction shop promotes the maker’s products | Ownership, sales purpose and independent coverage | Do not substitute a sales claim for independent evidence |
| Unsupported extension | The proposed wording says the maker invented the technique | Whether the source actually addresses priority | Remove the stronger claim unless appropriate evidence supports it |
| Contributor relationship | The proposer works for the workshop’s successor | Affiliation, compensation and applicable disclosure rules | Disclose and use an independent review route; acceptance remains open |
| External-links context | A catalogue resource is suggested beyond a single citation | Article relevance and English Wikipedia external-link guidance | Evaluate that purpose separately; do not add a promotional directory entry |
How to use the matrix
Imagine a fictional catalogue at archive.example/catalogue, page 18, describing glazed tiles made by a workshop in 1908. The proposed statement is deliberately narrow: the workshop produced glazed tiles in that year. A shop page selling reproductions says the workshop invented the technique. The catalogue example supplies no evidence for that stronger claim. Our worksheet compares those two candidates, records missing evidence and leaves the editorial decision open. The URL and publication are invented; do not cite them on Wikipedia.
If you own, represent or are paid by the subject, identify that relationship before proposing changes. English Wikipedia discourages conflict-of-interest editing and provides a talk-page edit-request route for independent consideration. Wikimedia’s terms include paid-contribution disclosure requirements; check the current terms and the local project’s additional rules. Disclosure is not approval. A reviewer can reject unsuitable text or sources, and an unpaid affiliation can still create a conflict. This worksheet sends no request and offers no paid Wikipedia placement.
Review checklist
- Write one exact claim before selecting a destination.
- Inspect the source itself, not just its title or search snippet.
- Record ownership and compensation separately from source quality.
- Check the relevant language project’s rules and disclose applicable relationships.
- Keep acceptance, link attributes and search results as separate, unverified outcomes.
Write down the target article, exact proposed sentence, source title, author, publication date, page or section, relevant passage and your relationship to the subject. Separate a source you actually inspected from one you merely found in a search result. In the exercise, record page 18 as fictional evidence and mark verification incomplete. In real work, check the publication and context yourself, retain a dated review note, and explain why the source supports only the proposed sentence. Leave unresolved questions visible.
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: relevance, balance and community judgment still matter. A dead reference is not permission to replace it with a commercial page; any replacement must support the original statement. This guide cannot promise a permanent link, a dofollow attribute, referral visits or improved rankings. Inspect any real published link separately instead of treating a domain name as a ranking score. Other language editions have their own policies; translations here describe the English project and do not authorize edits elsewhere.