Page MenuHomePhabricator

Article Guidance: Source URL Collection
Closed, ResolvedPublic8 Estimated Story Points

Assigned To
Authored By
SGautam_WMF
Jan 26 2026, 7:24 AM
Referenced Files
F72481763: image.png
Mar 3 2026, 9:55 AM
F72481771: image.png
Mar 3 2026, 9:55 AM
F72481775: image.png
Mar 3 2026, 9:55 AM
F72481777: image.png
Mar 3 2026, 9:55 AM
F72481681: Section 2.png
Mar 3 2026, 9:44 AM
F72480905: image.png
Mar 3 2026, 7:42 AM
F72393942: 3. Add sources.png
Feb 25 2026, 12:19 PM

Description

Goal

  • Ask users to provide sources before they start writing.
  • Help users understand what counts as a good source.
  • Use community-defined lists of recommended and discouraged sources.

3. Add sources.png (6,016×2,678 px, 355 KB)

States shown left to right:

  1. Empty: input field, tips expanded, Continue enabled
  2. URL pasted: checking source against community lists
  3. Source approved: green checkmark, source title shown
  4. Discouraged URL pasted: checking
  5. Source not recommended: warning shown, tips collapsed
  6. Source not recommended + tips expanded: shows what works and what doesn't

When to show

This step appears after the notability check (T415485). If the user passed all community checks, they land here. The user can add links to sources that support their topic. By default this step is optional, the user can skip it and add sources later while writing. If the article type carries the sources flag (defined in T415485), this step becomes mandatory, the user must provide sources before they can continue.

Entry points

FromWhen
T415485 — Notability checkUser passed all community checks
T415483 — Article type selectionDirect flow (if notability check is not configured for this wiki)

Exit conditions

OutcomeWhat happens next
User clicks Continue (with or without sources)Proceeds to T415486 — Content guidance
User clicks backReturns to previous step

Designs

Section 2.png (1,009×1,130 px, 61 KB)

  • Header: Back arrow + "New article" title. Same pattern as T414902.
  • Title block: Topic confirmed from T414902 shown as read-only text. Type shown as CdxInfoChip (--color-notice--subtle). Pencil icon (CdxIcon) opens title as CdxTextInput for editing. Editing title does not change the topic.
  • Source input: CdxTextInput — placeholder "Paste a link to a source". Heading: "Add sources". Subtitle: "Sources helps readers check the facts and shows why this topic matters."
  • Tips accordion: CdxAccordion this is community-defined content, expanded by default. Auto-expands when a source is not recommended.
  • Actions: CdxButton (primary progressive) "Continue". Helper text below: "You can add sources while you write."

States

Tips content (what makes a good source, what to avoid) is community-defined via community source lists.

State 1: Empty

image.png (1,179×2,556 px, 262 KB)

Input field visible. Tips section expanded showing what makes a good source. Continue button enabled. For mandatory mode behavior, see T418373.

State 2: URL pasted (checking)

image.png (1,179×2,556 px, 233 KB)

User pastes a URL into the input. System checks it against community source lists. CdxProgressIndicator shown inline with "Checking..." text. Input disabled during check.

State 3: Source approved

image.png (1,179×2,556 px, 238 KB)

CdxMessage (type: success) source looks usable. Domain name extracted from URL (e.g., "reuters.com"). Approved source moves below the input field with a close icon (CdxButton quiet) to remove it. Input clears and is ready for the next URL.

State 4: Discouraged URL (checking)

Same checking behavior as State 2. Progress indicator shown while system checks the URL.

State 5: Source not recommended

image.png (1,732×1,704 px, 262 KB)

Warning message shown. Tips section expands, showing what works and what doesn't as guidance. User can still continue, the warning is informational, not blocking.

Edge cases

  • Invalid URL: Inline validation error below the input: "Enter a valid URL". --color-error, --font-size-small.
  • Duplicate URL: Inline validation error below the input: "This source has already been added". --color-error, --font-size-small.

Event Timeline

There are a very large number of changes, so older changes are hidden. Show Older Changes
eamedina changed the task status from Open to In Progress.Mar 3 2026, 1:54 PM
eamedina claimed this task.
eamedina triaged this task as High priority.
eamedina moved this task from Prioritized to In-progress on the LPL Hypothesis board.

Change #1247725 had a related patch set uploaded (by Eamedina; author: Eamedina):

[mediawiki/extensions/ArticleGuidance@master] Refine SourcesStep layout and add source verification

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1247725

Change #1247725 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/ArticleGuidance@master] Refine SourcesStep layout and add source verification

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1247725

Change #1250054 had a related patch set uploaded (by Eamedina; author: Eamedina):

[mediawiki/extensions/ArticleGuidance@master] Handle unreliable sources

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1250054

Change #1250054 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/ArticleGuidance@master] Refine unreliable sources treatment

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1250054

Sources were my bread and butter as an academic librarian, and I can't say how excited I am tsee this step take shape! I’ve been following the task closely and love where it’s headed. Here are a few thoughts I’d love to explore together:

1. Embracing non‑URL reliable sources

A huge chunk of the sources we rely on—printed books, journals, newspapers—don’t come with a simple, stable URL. If we only accept URLs, we risk implicitly discouraging exactly the kinds of sources we want new editors to use. I noticed you’re already exploring how to integrate books (e.g., via ISBNs) and that feels like a perfect direction!

1.1 Could we take it further by hooking into Citoid? It already knows how to take a messy citation like “Smith, J. (2020). Title. Journal.” and return a structured source (doesn’t always work though!). Perhaps if Citoid recognizes them they could get the same green‑check success we give to URLs—showing that offline and non‑URL sources are just as welcome?

1.2 I wonder if, for the cases where the input appears to be in a valid format but we can’t resolve it, a gentle message like “We couldn’t automatically verify this, but if it follows these principles, you can still add it” would keep the flow open. And perhaps we could really think as this as a learning opportunity and even linking to a little test, like the one @ppelberg presented on tone check—for that, I think the questions @Ijon created for the Wikimedia Core Curriculum are great—and in case you don’t get them right, you could take the course!

3. Thinking about guided discovery

Related to my point above about treating this as a learning opportunity: right now, this step only reacts after someone pastes a URL. What if we also supported people who don’t have any sources yet? In addition to validating links, this could become a small discovery tool. For example, we could explore adding the following to the roadmap:

2.1 The loweste hanging fruit, could be to add a tip on where they could “find a source” that worked similarly to what these templates already do: Find sources template

2.2 Even more exciting, perhaps in the future, we could explore some connections with AI research assistants like Elicit, or our own internal tools, to suggest potential citations based on the topic? That feels like a future step that could turn this into a real source‑literacy moment! If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd love to talk about it, as I already have a written proposal.

Really looking forward to seeing how this evolves—happy to help brainstorm or connect with any relevant research!

SBisson moved this task from Design Signoff to In-progress on the LPL Hypothesis board.
SBisson added subscribers: eamedina, SBisson.

Moving back to work on source validation from the outlines

Change #1260747 had a related patch set uploaded (by Sbisson; author: Sbisson):

[mediawiki/extensions/ArticleGuidance@master] Validate sources against recommended/discouraged from outline

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1260747

Sources were my bread and butter as an academic librarian, and I can't say how excited I am tsee this step take shape! I’ve been following the task closely and love where it’s headed. Here are a few thoughts I’d love to explore together:

Thanks for the great ideas, @SEgt-WMF. Those make perfect sense. For the immediate experiment, the goal was to have a simple way to emphasize the need to have references upfront. So that we can learn if that makes a difference. I agree there is a lot of potential and opportunities to iterate this further. We'll consider these ideas when exploring this space in upcoming iterations. Thanks!!

Test wiki created on Patch demo by EAMedina (WMF) using patch(es) linked to this task:
https://eb88bd6545.catalyst.wmcloud.org/w/

Change #1260747 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/ArticleGuidance@master] Validate sources against recommended/discouraged from outline

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1260747

Change #1265548 had a related patch set uploaded (by Eamedina; author: Eamedina):

[mediawiki/extensions/ArticleGuidance@master] Update SourcesStep accordion design details

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1265548

Change #1255727 had a related patch set uploaded (by Sbisson; author: Sbisson):

[mediawiki/extensions/ArticleGuidance@master] Source validation: check url existence

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1255727

Change #1255727 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/ArticleGuidance@master] Source validation: check url existence

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1255727

Change #1265548 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/ArticleGuidance@master] Update SourcesStep accordion design details

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1265548

@SGautam_WMF am I missing something in this task or can we move it along?

I think we can move it along given we have made significant updates as part of this task, we can bring specific changes to separate tasks