User:Rosguill/GargAvinash NPPSCHOOL

Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your NPP School page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working).

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the School, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

Notability

Extended content

PART 1 I know that you said that you've already read through the notability guidelines, but given that this is a critical part of NPP, I'd like to ask you the following questions to confirm that you have a proper understanding of the subject. If you pass these without any issue, we can move on to other topics. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Questions Question 1 In your own words, how is notability defined on Wikipedia? We can call any subject notable for Wikipedia if that subject has more than one sources available on the internet. These sources should not be directly connected to the subject and also the sources should be little popular (like leading news agencies and published books). GargAvinash (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC) N, the bar for notability is not more than one sources available on the internet, it's significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The sources don't need to be on the internet, and there's no strict number of sources; if the sources are extremely thorough two may be enough (even one may be enough for the article to not be tagged if it's an extremely high quality source that clearly is building on information in other reliable sources). If the coverage is not particularly significant or thorough, even four or five sources may not cut it. If we had to pick a number of sources with significant coverage, a common standard is that the number is WP:THREE to establish sufficient notability such that even improvement tags are not necessary, although NPP reviewers are expected to be flexible and assess each article on a case by case basis (THREE's advice is targeted at editors creating articles so that they pass review without issue; it is not a guideline or policy for when you're reviewing). Finally, the source's popularity is not terribly important. In some cases, you may want to establish that sources are not exclusively local news, as local press often leans toward the WP:ROUTINE and may not do a full proper investigation of subjects that they report on. However, there are plenty of popular publications that are not reliable (e.g The Daily Mail, most tabloids), and the gold standard of reliability, peer-reviewed research papers, are generally not particularly "popular". signed, Rosguill talk 23:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Question 2 Would step by step instructions on how to "Change a car tire" be considered a notable topic in Wikipedia? Why or why not? I don't think that this type of instructions should have an article on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a place for DYI instructions. It is an encyclopedia and it must only have encyclopedic materials. GargAvinash (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Y, the specific policy covering this is WP:NOTMANUAL. signed, Rosguill talk 23:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Question 3 What are the differences between the WP:GNG and the subject-specific notability guidelines? How do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article? WP:GNG has generalised notability guidelines for any article on Wikipedia. For a specific type of subject, we have some detailed guidelines. I don't find any contradictions between these. I have seen many of the subject-specific notability guidelines stating that it must also pass GNG. While patrolling any article, we should keep both GNG and notability guidelines of that subject in mind. GargAvinash (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Y, this is essentially correct. There are some times when you'll come across an article where an SNG is met and it's not clear whether GNG has been met. Depending on the article and the SNG in question, it may or may not be advisable to nominate such an article for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Subject-specific notability guidelines 1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at WP:SNG) into the following three categories Primarily additional criteria that are likely to indicate notability Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Y Wikipedia:Notability (films) Y, this guideline does include additional criteria to establish notability, but the section on future and undistributed films (WP:NFF) also includes further restrictions. I would place this in column 3. Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) N, this guideline is mostly restrictions on the kind of coverage admissible for establishing the notability of companies. It is our strictest SNG and belongs in column 2. Primarily additional considerations that define or restrict the nature of coverage or sources required Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) N, criteria #1 and #4 are examples of additional notability criteria. While criteria #2 and #3 appear to be restrictions, they aren't unique to astronomical objects: databases generally don't count toward GNG, and #3 is just restating GNG. I would put this in column 1. Wikipedia:Notability (books) N, this guideline contains both additional positive criteria and additional restrictions, making it a column 3 guideline. That having been said, the restrictions included in NBOOK are almost never applicable, and in practice it behaves more like a column 1 guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (music) N, this should be column 3. It's primarily additional positive criteria, but there is one important restriction in the MUSICBIO section in italics at the bottom. Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) Y, there are some positive criteria too, but you're right that this is mostly additional restrictions Even mix of the previous two categories Wikipedia:Notability (events) N, this is a column 2 guideline Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) N, while this guideline does rule out maps and censuses, such sources are primary and thus are already ruled out for notability by default, and are included in the guideline just as an aid to new editors thinking about creating an article. Otherwise, it's a column 1 guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) N, primarily positive criteria, column 1 Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) N, this one might have more positive criteria than any other guideline and doesn't really put forward any restrictions, column 1. Wikipedia:Notability (web) Y, this is not a guideline you will have to use often as it provides almost no criteria one way or the other. The most useful information in this guideline are its instructions about what to do once it's been established that notability has not been met. GargAvinash (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 2. Virtually all SNGs that provide additional notability criteria specify that these criteria may indicate that the subject meets notability guidelines. How would you interpret this caveat as a new page reviewer? SNGs are notability criteria for a specific topic. If any article meets the criteria on SNG then it have followed the notablity guidelines. Also, we can't only rely on GNG for determining the notability of an article for Wikipedia. We should mind the subject-specific guidelines too. GargAvinash (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC) N, all articles are expected to meet the GNG. SNGs are shortcuts to GNG, ostensibly vetted by the community such that if the SNG is met then GNG will have been met even if the necessary sources are not available to us right now. In practice, what this means is that if you come across an article that meets an SNG but does not clearly meet GNG, you need to make a judgment call. If we're pretty close to GNG, then we should accept on the strength of the SNG. However, if the subject seems particularly obscure and the sources are nowhere near meeting GNG (after having conducted a WP:BEFORE), we need to consider deletion. Note as well that several SNGs, particularly (but not exclusively) NBIO-related ones are rather subjective. Has a given actor had multiple significant roles in notable films/shows/etc.? If a subject only weakly meets a subjective SNG, there may be grounds for deleting the article. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Break GargAvinash, looks like you had a bit of trouble with the subject-specific notability guidelines. I've added more questions below, but I also want to open up space here in case you have further questions or disagree with my comments above. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Scenarios For the following scenarios, review just based on "subject notability guidelines" (SNG) "alone" for sake of the exercise. Do not consider any sources or other policies. Please answer if the subject meets the SNG guidelines based on the given content below, and specify which notability criteria they meet or fail. Scenario 1 An editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2020 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why? "2024 Summer Olympics" can be notable if it has been announced officially at the time of creating this article; according to criteria 1 and 2 at Wikipedia:Notability (events). If the article's creator has not provided any sources then it doesn't mean that this event is not notable, wee can add references.GargAvinash (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Y, as a follow up question, can you think of what we should do if an editor creates an article about 2040 Olympics and no sources are available? signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC) I think that this event is not yet notable because sources are necessary for any content on Wikipedia. GargAvinash (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Correct. What do you think we should do with the article in that case (don't worry if you're not sure, the answer isn't in the materials that I've asked you to read so far). signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I guess, we should move that article in draft namespace. GargAvinash (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC) For articles about recurring events like the Olympics and most other sports championships, standard practice is actually to convert not-notable-yet editions of the event to the general article about the event, in this case Summer Olympics. signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Scenario 2 A New York city based 2020 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund. If the company has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as stated on Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) page. This page also mentions the meaning of Significant coverage. So, we can decide on the notability of the company accordingly. I think (nowhere mentioned) that we have nothing to do with the amount of investments received by a company. GargAvinash (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Based on the information currently provided, would you be able to conclude that the company is notable? signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC) There is not much additional criteria for commercial companies on Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If the given information is verifiable by sources and the company has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject then this can be notable. For the sake of significant coverage we can go through WP:CORPDEPTH. GargAvinash (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Y I was looking for a clear no but you obviously understand the criteria at play here, which is good enough. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Scenario 3 Movsar Evloev who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 12-0. This subject may be notable according to WP:SPORTSPERSON but I can't say surely because I have near to no knowledge about fighting competitions so that I can decide whether he has participated in major competitions or not. GargAvinash (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Look a little harder at WP:NSPORTS, a relevant guideline can be found there. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC) WP:NMMA says martial artists are presumed notable if they have fought at least three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization. According to sources available about him on the internet, he has fought only two top-tier (WP:MMATIER) fights (UFC Fight Night 162 & UFC Fight Night 149). So, he is currently not notable for Wikipedia. GargAvinash (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 4 An upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, was reported will be in production in December 2019 and to be released on August 2020 in the cinemas. Not notable. Unreleased films can have article on Wikipedia only when we have reliable sources indicating that the principal photography of the film has been started. GargAvinash (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 5 A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2020 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy. Can be notable as WP:POLITICIAN says, Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are presumed to be notable. GargAvinash (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) N, as the subject hasn't held a position yet, they're not a major local political figure. Major local political figure is generally understood as referring to local government officials of very large/important locations, e.g. the mayor of a major city like New York or Mumbai. It is, however, possible for subjects that don't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN to meet WP:GNG, but that's not the question being asked here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Scenario 6 A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify. Not notable according to criteria mentioned at WP:ENT. GargAvinash (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Y The following scenarios are all articles on Wikipedia which meet notability guidelines. Please simply assess whether an SNG would apply to the article's subject, ignoring GNG for the sake of this exercise. Scenario 7 Carlos Alós-Ferrer Following Criterion 8 at WP:NACADEMIC of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). GargAvinash (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 8 Alistair Overeem Following first point of WP:NMMA and Criterion 1 at WP:NKICK of Wikipedia:Notability (sports). GargAvinash (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 9 Jennifer Lopez Following Criterion 1 at WP:NACTOR and Criterion 3 at WP:ARTIST of Wikipedia:Notability (people). GargAvinash (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 10 Three Mile Island accident Following WP:LASTING at WP:EVENTCRIT of Wikipedia:Notability (events). GargAvinash (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 11 Persepolis Following WP:GEOFEAT of Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). GargAvinash (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Y

Sources

Background for trainees

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, claims made in articles should be supported by independent (secondary), reliable sources for verification. Please read WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:RSP, WP:V, WP:PROVEIT, WP:Primary, WP:Secondary, and WP:Tertiary.

You can contact WP:RX if you could not find the sources yourself either on the web due to paywalls or offline-only sources.

---

Exercises

1.

Topic	Definition	5 Examples	Comment by Trainer
Reliable source	Sources for any article on Wikipedia must be reliable. Generally the sources which are not too new or old and is not directly connected to the topic are considered reliable. GargAvinash (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)	(example)The Guardian newspaper BBC News Asian News International Astronomical Journal The Conversation Deadline Hollywood	Y, the examples are solid, but in addition to the description given, I would add that reliable sources are generally either professionally published works with editorial teams and a track record for accuracy (as well as a track record of retracting/correcting anything that turns out to have been false), or are published by established experts in a field relevant to the subject matter being covered (e.g. a blog by a professor in physics with a track record of publishing well-cited papers is reliable for physics-related claims, despite being a blog, by virtue of its author's credentials) signed, Rosguill talk 02:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
User generated sources	Sources that are generated without the verification of facts. GargAvinash (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)	Personal website Social media Internet forums Personal blogs Self-published videos	Y, I'm not sure I'd use the phrasing you did for the description, but you clearly get the picture. signed, Rosguill talk 02:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Non Independent source	Non-independent sources mean the sources that have vested interest in the topic implies they may have a financial or legal relationship to the topic. GargAvinash (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)	Autobiographies Corporate websites Conflicts of interest Album sleeve notes Press Releases	Y, although I'd say that virtually any relationship with the topic makes something non-independent, no need to limit it to financial or legal relationships. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

2.

Type	Definition	Examples (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary)	Comment by Trainer
Primary	Primary Sources are very close to any event. If it is a published written source then it is often written by the people who are directly involved in that topic. It is the actual stuff that can be found for any subject. GargAvinash (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)	(example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results Personal interview of a person Information about movies on movie's or the production website Autobiography of a person Press Conference video A scientific paper authored by the person who did an experiment Eyewitnesses of an incident Directly reported news by news reporters Census data by the organization that organised the census. Facebook post or tweet by the official handle of a corporate Ancient diaries Survey data by the organization that organised the survey A published book itself Information about school and colleges on their official website Constitution of a country Press release documents	N/A Y Interviews can include a mix of primary and secondary coverage. Anything that the interview subject says is primary, but good interviews generally include a few paragraphs of introduction at the beginning which is typically secondary. Depending on how serious the journalist is, the content of their questions may be secondary coverage. Long form journalistic pieces based around interviews like this one can be considered secondary for everything other than quotes and statements attributed to the subject signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Y Y This is identical to #1 Y Y, technically this can be true, but in practice almost all print coverage by a news organization will include secondary analysis Y Y Y although really this goes for any diary regardless of age Y Y, assuming you mean a published book when used for information about the book. Books covering independent subjects will be either secondary or tertiary Y Y Y signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Secondary	Secondary Sources relies on primary sources. It provides the author's own views on any incident or topic based on primary sources. This includes the analysis of facts obtained by primary sources. GargAvinash (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)	(example) newspaper Movie reviews Review article that analyzes research papers Biography of a person authored from the autobiography Review of a Book Scientific journals	N/A Y Y Y if the author and publisher are independent of the subject, any biography is a secondary source, regardless of its source materials Y N, as mentioned in the primary source section, scientific journals also publish original research, which will generally be primary in nature As far as your overall definition is concerned, while secondary sources generally do rely on primary sources, secondary sources are also allowed to incorporate information from other secondary sources or tertiary sources as well. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Tertiary	Tertiary Sources are either based on primary and secondary sources altogether or only on secondary sources. It summarizes the information obtained from primary and secondary sources. GargAvinash (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)	(example) encyclopedias Bibliographies Overview articles of any topic Compendia School textbooks Almanac	Y

3.

Subject	Primary	Secondary	Tertiary	Comment by Trainer
Example: Art	Example:Sculpture	Example:Article critiquing the sculpture	Example:Encyclopedic article on the sculptor
History	Original script	Study by archaeologists	Analysis of script & study by journalists	Y, the example for the tertiary source sounds like a secondary source. Tertiary sources generally don't introduce original analysis, but rather just summarize other sources
Science	"Experiment" in journal	Analysis of the experiment by a profesor	Chapter of the experiment in school textbook	Y
Athletes	Straight answers by them	Media coverage on them	Encyclopedic article on them	Y

In the tables below, please indicate "y" for yes or "n" for no after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n" for each source.

4

Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania (1937)

Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 – April 9, 1959) was an American architect, interior designer, writer, and educator. Wright believed in designing structures that were in harmony with humanity and its environment, a philosophy he called organic architecture. His creative period spanned more than 70 years. He works includes The Guggenheim, swirling, snail-shaped museum in the middle of Manhattan. Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture." This is one of Wright's most famous private residences (completed 1937), was built for Mr. and Mrs. Edgar J. Kaufmann, Sr., at Mill Run, Pennsylvania. Constructed over a 30-foot waterfall, it was designed according to Wright's desire to place the occupants close to the natural surroundings. The house was intended to be more of a family getaway, rather than a live-in home.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://nypost.com/2017/06/07/frank-lloyd-wright-was-a-house-builder-and-homewrecker/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://franklloydwright.org/work/	Foundation is closely related with the subject	Seems they do fact checking for the reputation of foundation	All works and biography of subject is listed there	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302053743/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm	Magzine is not related with or biased towards the subject	Though it was questioned for "The Big Hack" issue but now it looks good for reliability	Article on the subject seems significant	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	Author and publisher is unrelated with subject	Author is not notable for writing other books	Book is wholly based on the subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Y, all correct except the book: John Wiley and Sons is a well-known and reputable publisher, so we can assume that it's sufficiently reliable in this context. If the author had an established track record of being unreliable, that would be a different story. A citation like that will hold up through GA-level, maybe at FA it would cause trouble, but for NPP this caliber of source is fine, provided that it's not being used to support some outlandish claim (e.g. "Wright was briefly the King of France from 1940–1942"). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

---

5

Jordan Lennon (born February 22, 2000), is a British film producer and actor. Lennon is currently a member of BAFTA. He continues to work aside 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros, Wicked Wales, Capture Studios, Cineworld, Paramount Pictures, and Rockefeller Foundation.

At age 16, the Vice President of 20th Century Fox, Paul Higginson. Who previously worked on Star Wars, Titanic, and Independence Day took on Jordan and Rowan Snow as a mentor. In December 2018, Jordan and Rowan finished British Film Academy. Jordan lived in Skelmersdale for 10 years before moving to Rhyl, North Wales. He's currently writing 'Stranger in the Night' scrreenplay for Warner Brothers.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8902348/	Source has not any connection with the subject	I have seen some wrong details on IMDb means they don't verify the informations on regular basis	Has limited details about the subject	✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales	It is stated that subject is a member of this academy	We don't know how they add details about their members	I don't see any details about subject on the website	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125	assuming (it is a dead link) if it goes to the subject's profile, it can't be independent because users feed the details themselves	We can rely on it for the primary information only if the profile is verified	Only limited information is generally provided on a linkedIn profile	✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/	Not related to subject in any way	Not reputable for fact-checking	Very less information about the subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

Y, all correct. Beyond your hunch about unreliable information, IMDb actually has an entry at WP:RSP which records a clear consensus that IMDb is not a reliable source due to its reliance on crowdsourcing and a lack of fact checking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Section break for convenience

6

Sonny Bill Williams 2010

Sonny William Williams (born 3 August 1985), who is a Muslim, is a New Zealand All blacks rugby union footballer, Williams was a Marist Saints junior when he was spotted playing in Auckland by Bulldogs talent scout John Ackland. In 2002 he was offered a contract and moved to Sydney (as the youngest player to ever sign with an NRL club) to play in the Bulldogs' junior grades.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7505117/2019-Rugby-World-Cup-Sonny-Bill-Williams-expecting-fourth-child.html	It is an news/media website which is not related to our subject.	Seems not biased and leading news agency.	Many important information missing but the coverage is not shrinked. They have covered much about personal life of the subject.	✔ Yes
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108				? Unknown
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308				? Unknown
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html				? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

7

David Petraeus

David Howell Petraeus AO (/pɪˈtreɪ.əs/; born November 7, 1952) is a retired United States Army general and public official. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011, until his resignation on November 9, 2012 after his affair with Paula Broadwell was reported.

Petraeus was born in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, the son of Sixtus Petraeus (1915–2008), a sea captain from Franeker, Netherlands.

In 2003, Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the fall of Baghdad

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch				? Unknown
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893				? Unknown
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012				? Unknown
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005				? Unknown
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html				? Unknown
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html				? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References