A strong Wikipedia request connects each proposed factual change to a suitable published source. Evaluate the source's reliability for that specific claim, its independence where relevant and whether your wording stays within what the publication actually establishes.
01
Match the source type to the claim
Independent reporting may support a summary of public significance, while an official document can support a straightforward fact about the organization that issued it. Neither type is appropriate for every purpose. Consider editorial oversight, expertise, publication context and potential conflicts. A source that is useful for confirming an address may be unsuitable for declaring that a company is an industry leader.
02
Avoid combining facts into a new conclusion
Wikipedia's verifiability and no-original-research policies require care beyond providing links. Two individually sourced facts do not automatically justify an inference that no reliable source makes. For example, a leadership change and a revenue decline do not establish that the first caused the second. Quote or summarize the source accurately, and preserve qualifications such as alleged, estimated or disputed when applicable.
- Create a table with proposed sentence, source passage and publication details.
- Flag self-published material, sponsored content and references repeating one report.
- Remove claims whose support depends on private knowledge or original analysis.
03
Prepare a focused, transparent request
Use the article's discussion process and disclose your relationship to the subject. Provide enough source context for another editor to assess the proposal, but avoid copying long passages. Separate an uncontroversial date correction from a contested interpretation so each can be discussed on its merits. Follow the language edition's procedures and accept that reviewers may suggest different wording or decline the change.
Frequently asked questions
Are official websites always unacceptable sources?
No. They can support some straightforward facts, subject to policy limits. They generally do not supply independent evidence of notability or establish contested praise about themselves.
Can confidential documents prove the correction?
Private knowledge does not meet the ordinary requirement for published, verifiable sourcing. Handle sensitive information appropriately and seek a suitable public source rather than uploading confidential records.
Continue with your next step
Related guides on this topic
Sources and policies
Check the current policy before submitting a request.
You do not have to figure out the next step alone.
Share the URLs and explain your concern. We will review the context and explain which options are worth assessing.
Request a confidential reviewOr call (307) 429-2531Educational information, not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the facts and decisions made by third parties.