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.

There are three different ways to use this template:

Add importScript( 'User:DannyS712/SATG.js' ); to your common.js page (User:[your username]/common.js). This will add a link ("SA Table Generator") in your Tools menu that will prompt you for inputs and generate a source assessment table automatically. A great option if you use this template a lot.

As the first (and only) unnamed parameter of this template, enter one or more calls to {{source assess}} (or its alias {{SA}}), providing parameters for each source inside that template. The table will initially display collapsed, unless the parameter |startopen= is used with a value of "Yes" (or "YES" or "yes").

{{ source assess table
<!--Optional: | user=<editor who prepared the table> -->
<!--Optional: | startopen=Yes -->
|       <!--All calls to {{source assess}} are inside this first parameter-->
{{ source assess | ... }} <!--Parameters described at {{tl|source assess}}-->
{{ source assess | ... }}
...
}}

Manually add parameters for up to ten sources directly to this template. Parameter names are the same as the abbreviated forms used in {{source assess}}, but with a number 1-10 appended to indicate which source the parameter applies to. Any parameter except src can be skipped or left blank.

Parameter (Replace "X" with 1-10 for each source)	Purpose	Use
srcX	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.
indX or iX	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
relX or rX
sigX or sX
ind_justX or ijX	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_justX or rjX
sig_justX or sjX

{{ source assess table
| user=Example 
| startopen=Yes 

| src1 = http://www.example_source1.com/doc1
| i1 = y | ij1 = 
| r1 = y | rj1 = The source is a noted book by a well-known author
| s1 = y | sj1 = The source discusses the subject directly and in detail

| src2 = http://www.example_source2.com/page1
| i2 = y
| r2 = ? | rj2 = This is a self-published source, and the expertise of its author has not been established
| s2 = 

| src3 = http://www.example_source3.com/file1
| i3 = y 
| r3 = y | rj3 = The source is a major newspaper
| s3 = - | sj3 = The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail

| src4 = http://www.example_source4.org/doc1
| i4 = n | ij4 = The subject works for this publication
| s4 = y | sj4 = 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		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.
• {{source assess}}, used to manually create rows for a source assess table.
• {{ORGCRIT assess table}}, a variation of this template specific to the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)