Source Checker

What it checks

1. 1

   Citations support the evidence citation-supports-evidence

   Does each evidence item's cited source exist as cited and support the evidence item as the article states it?

   2 findings · 1 applied
2. 2

   Quotes and figures match quote-fidelity

   Do direct quotes, numbers, dates, and named figures match the archived source exactly or within stated rounding?

   3 findings · 2 applied
3. 3

   Sources represented fairly in context source-context

   Read as a whole, does each source leave a reader believing what the article implies, or does a technically accurate excerpt mislead by omitting context, caveats, or contrary findings in the same source?

   3 findings · 2 applied
4. 4

   Sources can support their claims source-fit

   Is each source the kind that can support what it is cited for: a factual, accountable source for a factual claim, and any source for a claim about its own contents?

   No findings yet
5. 5

   Conclusion rests on cited evidence conclusion-uses-cited-evidence

   Does every factual assertion in the conclusion trace to at least one cited evidence item?

   2 findings
6. 6

   Sources are archived sources-archived

   Does every source an evidence item cites have an archived copy, so readers and auditors can check exactly what the author cited?

   3 findings · 1 applied

Each check comes back as Pass, Concern (minor or material), Fail, Not applicable, or Not checked.

How it grades

The first rule that matches the check results gives the grade.

1. Any check is Fail A source contradicts the article, does not exist as cited, or is fiction, satire, or a fabricating outlet cited as fact.
2. Check 'source-context' is Concern (material) Mostly false or highly misleading: a source is quoted accurately but out of context, or there are several material problems.
3. 2 or more checks are Concern (material) Mostly false or highly misleading: a source is quoted accurately but out of context, or there are several material problems.
4. Any check is Concern (material) One claim is only partly supported, or a claim the conclusion depends on rests only on an open-edit or opinion source.
5. Any check is Concern Sources support the article, with minor imprecision, light reliance on open-edit sources for background, a source without an archived copy, or a source that could not be read.
6. Any check is not checked Sources support the article, with minor imprecision, light reliance on open-edit sources for background, a source without an archived copy, or a source that could not be read.
7. Otherwise Every source is archived, was read, supports what it is cited for, is the right kind of source for that claim, and is represented fairly in context.

From its instructions

Checks each evidence item against its cited source, using only the text FactHub fetched: the archived copy, or else the live page, or else an existing Wayback capture. It checks that the source exists as cited, says what the article says, and isn't quoted out of context, and that each source can support its claim: fiction, satire, or a fabricating outlet cited as fact fails, and open-edit sources such as Wikipedia may point to evidence but not carry it alone. A dead link the conclusion depends on fails in a new article and is a material concern in an older one, where it is likely link rot. Sources should be archived: an unarchived source is a minor concern (at worst a B). A source that can't be read is marked Not checked, never guessed. It doesn't judge whether the conclusion is right, only whether the sources say what the article says.

Recent audits

1. If I-645 passes, the tax relief for working families stays in place. Version 1 · 1 of 6 checks passed · 22 October 2026 by auditor version 4
2. Fluoride toothpaste prevents cavities; the IQ concern involves far higher fluoride intake. Version 3 · 2 of 6 checks passed · 11 October 2026 by auditor version 4
3. EPA found no unreasonable cancer risk from using laundry detergents like Tide. Version 8 · 2 of 6 checks passed · 11 October 2026 by auditor version 4
4. EPA found no unreasonable cancer risk from using laundry detergents like Tide. Version 7 · 3 of 6 checks passed · 11 October 2026 by auditor version 4
5. EPA found no unreasonable cancer risk from using laundry detergents like Tide. Version 7 · 3 of 6 checks passed · 11 October 2026 by auditor version 4

All audits →

Latest findings

1. Sources initiative-text, session-law, ag-statement, house-opr, governor-release, bpc and fiscal-note have no archived copy; archive them with archive_source.

   Open Minor check sources-archived about article:i645-relief-stays-460000-families:1 (a draft when audited) 22 October 2026 by version 4

2. Conclusion's 'simple majority' repeal power, 'no such bill has passed' and 'no court has ruled' trace to no evidence item; cite a source or mark as context.

   Open Minor check conclusion-uses-cited-evidence about article:i645-relief-stays-460000-families:1 (a draft when audited) 22 October 2026 by version 4

3. Sources walsh-cochrane-2019, wright-jada-2014, wong-cochrane-2024, taylor-jama-pediatrics-2025 and whitford-2011 have no archived copy; archive them with archive_source.

   Acknowledged Minor check sources-archived about article:fluoride-toothpaste-prevents-cavities:3 11 October 2026 by version 4

   Valid. Version 4 archives wright-jada-2014. The other four (two Cochrane reviews, Taylor, Whitford) still return HTTP 403 to FactHub and the Wayback Machine was unavailable on retry. The editorial note now discloses this. We will retry later.

4. Evidence ntp-iq-review says no significant drinking-water association below 1.5 mg/L; the NTP page calls this uncertain (few studies) and reports high-quality-study associations below 1.5 mg/L.

   Applied in version 4 Minor check source-context about article:fluoride-toothpaste-prevents-cavities:3 11 October 2026 by version 4

   Version 4's ntp-iq-review item now says few studies and real uncertainty below 1.5 mg/L for drinking water alone, and that higher-quality studies show associations below 1.5 mg/L in urine or water.

5. Evidence label-and-2025-actions says the rule tells parents of under-2s to supervise to minimize swallowing; 21 CFR 355.50(d)(1) applies that to children under 6.

   Applied in version 4 Minor check quote-fidelity about article:fluoride-toothpaste-prevents-cavities:3 11 October 2026 by version 4

   Corrected in version 4: the instruct-to-minimize-swallowing and supervise directions cover children under 6, and the consult-a-dentist direction applies under 2, per 21 CFR 355.50(d)(1)(i).

All findings →