The use of this template does not imply a final or consensus view of how any given source should be assessed. Though it may be used to summarize a developing consensus, it may also reflect the assessments of a single editor in the course of a discussion.

The GNG is a general benchmark for assessing the presumed notability of article topics. From the GNG:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

The GNG and other guidelines expand on what is meant by "significant coverage", "reliability", and "independence".

{{Source assess}} and {{source assess table}} provide a visually clear means of presenting an assessment of sources against each of these three criteria, as well as an overall assessment derived from these criterion assessments.

This template must be wrapped in {{Source assess table}}, as shown in the example.

Any parameter except for source can be skipped or left blank.

Parameter	Purpose	Notes
source (or src, or the first unnamed parameter)	The source being assessed	Should contain, at the very least, a link to the source being assessed; it may contain any other useful information, including {{citation}} templates.
independence (or ind or i)	Whether the source meets the independence, reliability, or significance criterion, respectively (use values at right)	Value Output Meaning "yes", "y", or equivalent per {{yesno}}  [justification] The source meets the criterion "no", "n", or equivalent per {{yesno}}  [justification] The source does not meet the criterion "~" (tilde), "-" (hyphen), "partial", "part", or "p" ~ [justification] The source partially meets the criterion "?", "unknown", "unk", or "u"  [justification] It has not been or cannot be determined whether the source meets the criterion [blank] It has not been assessed whether the source meets the criterion
reliability (or rel or r)
significance (or sig or s)
ind_just (or ij)	Justification for the corresponding assessment	These parameters are not strictly required, but their use is highly encouraged; deletion discussions are evaluated on the basis of well-supported arguments based on policy and guidelines.
rel_just (or rj)
sig_just (or sj)

Full parameter names:

{{ source_assess
| source       =     <!-- Source (link or citation template)               -->
| independence =     <!-- y/n/~/? -->
| ind_just     =     <!-- Justification of independence assessment                   -->
| reliability  =     <!-- y/n/~/? -->
| rel_just     =     <!-- Justification of reliability assessment                    -->
| significance =     <!-- y/n/~/? -->
| sig_just     =     <!-- Justification of significance of coverage assessment       -->
}}

Abbreviated form:

{{SA
| <!--source info here-->
| i =  | ij =     
| r =  | rj = 
| s =  | sj = 
}}

{{ source assess table
| user=Example 
|
{{ source assess   
| source   = http://www.example_source1.com/doc1
| independence   = y | ind_just = 
| reliability    = y | rel_just = The source is a noted book by a well-known author
| significance   = y | sig_just = The source discusses the subject directly and in detail
}}
{{ source assess   
| src   = http://www.example_source2.com/page1
| ind   = y | ind_just = 
| rel   = ? | rel_just = This is a self-published source, and the expertise of its author has not been established
| sig   =   | sig_just = 
}}
{{ source assess   
| src   = http://www.example_source3.com/file1
| ind   = y | ind_just = 
| rel   = y | rel_just = The source is a major newspaper
| sig   = ~ | sig_just = The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail
}}
{{ source assess   
| http://www.example_source4.org/doc1
| i = n | ij = The subject works for this publication
| r = y | rj = This publication is a highly cited scholarly journal
| s = y | sj = The article discusses the subject directly and in detail
}}
}}

Source assessment table prepared by User:Example

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://www.example_source1.com/doc1		The source is a noted book by a well-known author	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
http://www.example_source2.com/page1		This is a self-published source, and the expertise of its author has not been established		? Unknown
http://www.example_source3.com/file1		The source is a major newspaper	~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	~ Partial
http://www.example_source4.org/doc1	The subject works for this publication	This publication is a highly cited scholarly journal	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ 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}}.

The template computes an overall assessment of whether the source should count toward meeting WP:GNG, based on the three criteria. This overall assessment is determined as follows:

• User:DannyS712/SATG, a script for assisting users in creating a source assessment table.
• {{ORGCRIT assess}} / {{ORGCRIT assess table}} – similar templates for assessing against the notability criteria for organizations, businesses, products, and services