Citation workflow findings

Findings

Preserve the claim and direct support

The workflow should store the reviewed claim beside the source that directly supports it. English Wikipedia requires direct support for inline citations on challenged or likely challenged material.^{verifiability-policy}

Preserve source-selection context

The workflow should record why a source fits the specific claim. The reliable sources guideline evaluates the work, creator, publication, and publisher in context.^{reliable-sources-guideline}

Preserve enough citation detail to find the evidence

The workflow should store a durable URL and the relevant page, section, or other locator when one is available. Citation details help the next reviewer identify the supporting part of a source.^{citing-sources-guideline}

Proposed record

For each reviewed claim, preserve:

• The exact claim text.
• The source URL or file path.
• The part of the source that supports the claim.
• The source-selection reason.
• The reviewer and review date.
• Any uncertainty or unresolved objection.

Limits

• The review covers English Wikipedia pages on 2026-08-08.
• The review does not include editor interviews or observed editing sessions.
• The review does not compare citation tools.
• The findings do not replace Wikipedia policy or community consensus.

Open questions

• Which source locator format works best across web pages, books, and PDFs?
• Which review fields should be mandatory for low-risk edits?
• How should a workflow record later policy changes?