Begin with the published record
A Wikipedia source assessment starts with the coverage available about a person. Collect the most substantial profiles, reported articles and accounts of their work. The aim is to understand which parts of a career have received meaningful attention and how much biographical context the sources provide.
English Wikipedia’s biography guidance considers substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, with further considerations for particular fields. The assessment therefore examines what has been published, who published it and the relationship between each source and the person.
Build a source table you can inspect
For each item, record the original address, publisher, date and title. Open the complete text and summarize the subject it covers. A search preview gives too little context to assess the article’s depth or relevance. If the original is inaccessible, record that and continue with the material you can examine.
Add a short note about the biographical facts supported: a career stage, a significant project, a professional contribution or the wider context of the person’s work. The source table becomes useful when each row explains what the material adds.
- Original source address, publisher and date.
- The part of the career discussed.
- Specific facts supported by the text.
- Depth, relevance and relationship to the subject.
Read for substance and source relationships
A mention in a list provides a different amount of context from a reported profile. An interview may include both the person’s answers and the publication’s own reporting. Read the whole piece and identify where it describes the contribution in detail.
Trace repeated stories to their origin. Several pages may reproduce one announcement or quote the same original report. Group them in the inventory so the assessment shows how many distinct accounts exist and what each contributes to the biographical picture.
Map an outline to the strongest coverage
Write a short outline of the career using the strongest material: early work, the contribution receiving attention and later developments. Attach source references to each proposed section. This shows which areas have useful context and where the record is sparse.
Check that the sources are discussing the right person and the right contribution. A company story may offer little information about its founder’s individual work. A familiar name may belong to another professional. Matching names, roles and dates prevents those sources from entering the wrong record.
Ask for a written recommendation
A useful assessment explains the evidence behind its conclusion. It identifies the strongest sources, describes the coverage they provide and records the questions still open. The recommendation should connect directly to that analysis so you can understand the next step.
For an existing page, a source review can produce a focused update list. Record the current wording, the proposed factual change and the reference supporting it. This turns a general concern about a biography into a precise set of points for review.
Use the research across your professional profile
The source inventory can uncover outdated role descriptions, a forgotten interview or confusion between people with similar names. It can also reveal which contributions are difficult to understand without a fuller explanation. Those findings are useful when reviewing your website, biography and professional introductions.
PR Drift’s assessment delivers an organized source record, a biographical fact map and a written recommendation. The work begins with the published material you already have and the question you want resolved, with full confidentiality around the engagement.