Template:Better source/doc

How to use
This template is used in articles to identify sentences or short passages which have an inline citation but reference insufficient sources. It produces a superscripted notation like the following:
 * Most people believe in ghosts.[1]


 * References
 * 1. Random tabloid

You can also include a (non-displayed) reason note, to leave a better record for future editors. For example, the following usage might be appropriate to the arguable claim that "Most people believe in ghosts...":

Adding this template to an article places the article into one of a family of categories identifying articles with sourcing issues. To find all such articles, see Category:Wikipedia articles with sourcing issues.

When to use
Use this template to "tag" information or analysis that you believe is insufficiently supported by sources that are lacking in quality, so that other editors can see whether this use is appropriate and/or replace it with references to proper, reliable sources.

When not to use this template
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately. Do not tag it: remove it. For more information, see the section on poorly sourced contentious material in the Biography of Living Persons policy.

Material which is doubtful and harmful may be removed immediately, rather than tagged. See Unsourced material.

If no citation is given, use the tag instead. If the source given is self-published, use. If you think the author has a conflict of interest or is otherwise too close to the subject, use.

If you have the time and ability to find a better reference, please do so. Then correct the citation yourself, or correct the article text. After all,

Inline templates

 * primary source-inline
 * Citequote, for "actual quotations" which need citations to make them proper
 * Page number, request a page number for an existing citation
 * List fact, request a citation of a source which justifies inclusion of a given entry in a list
 * Clarifyme, request clarification of wording or interpretation
 * Reference necessary, wrapper for a portion of a paragraph to highlight it as needing citation
 * Verify credibility, flag a source as possibly being unreliable and/or unverifiable
 * Verify source, request that someone verify the cited source backs up the material in the passage
 * Failed verification, source was checked, and did not contain the cited material
 * Request quotation, request a direct quote from an inaccessible source, for verification purposes
 * Third-party-inline, to mark sentences needing an independent or third-party source

Content

 * Dubious – when a fact is sourced, but verifiability remains dubious
 * or – flag something as possibly containing original research
 * POV-statement – dispute the neutrality of a passage
 * weasel-inline – Avoid weasel words.
 * who – for placement after descriptions of a group of persons.
 * whom – placement after mention of a vague third party claim that is not sourced.

Whole article

 * Unreferenced — whole article contains zero references
 * third-party — whole article contains zero indepdendent/third-party references

Article message box templates

 * Unreferenced, article/section has no sources/references/citations given at all
 * Refimprove, article/section has weak or incomplete sources/references/citations
 * Citecheck, article/section may have inappropriate or misinterpreted citations