Opothleyahola

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Academic Journals This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles This article has been marked as needing an infobox. See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article. Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A direct url for the reference is preferred

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?ics1=01&ics2=140&ics3=40&csnumber=3569

BTW, where is any critical commentary of the standard ??? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+%22ISO+4%22&btnG=Search --222.64.23.186 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be forewarned that having only just registered today and never contributed before, it is entirely possible that my understanding of site policy is flawed or incomplete. If that is the case, I apologise in advance.

With that being said, at this time the article is currently flagged for the following three issues: Relying on a single source, referencing a self-published source, and relying on a source too closely associated with the subject.

Given the nature and subject of the article and taking into account the following consideration; that the provided source is the official website of the intergovernmental authority responsible for the international standard which is the subject of the article, are the latter two issues applicable in this context?

Guidelines for self-published sources state that "Anyone can create a personal web page [...]". Having read the rest of that guideline, I'm not sure that the official site of the ISSN International Centre merits the same categorisation as personal blogs or social media postings that the guideline seems to mean. While anyone can create their own blog or make a forum post, not everyone can establish an intergovernmental institution under United Nations authority with participation from 89 member nations (as verifiable from the web pages of the national governments in question). The websites of the Canadian and Australian governments as well as UNESCO's state that the ISSN International Centre is an official body within the UNESCO framework, and pages on websites belonging to UNESCO as well as that of the national governments of the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada all refer to issn.org as the correct address.

Taken together these seem to suggest that perhaps the improper references to self-published sources flag should not apply, even if technically true: while the source is indeed self-published, perhaps exceptions could be made if the source is the internationally-designated authority responsible for the subject of the article?

Which leads into the article's third flagged issue: excessive reliance on sources too closely associated with the subject. The association between source and subject is obviously indisputable - especially considering what was mentioned earlier - but the concerns of verifiability and neutrality don't seem to be particularly applicable in this context. For starters, the fact that the source already is the ISO Registration Authority (as mentioned earlier) should address the issue of verifiability. With regards to neutrality; the subject matter doesn't exactly leave much wiggle room for controversy or bias - it's an international standard. I could be wrong, but there aren't exactly a bunch of contested opinions or competing points-of-view here.

Once again, I've only just registered - if I'm missing something here please bear with me.

Thoughts? S2A6 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]