{{Infobox
| title = [[Engadget]]
| image = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label2 = source type
| data2 = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3 = publisher
| data3 = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5 = website
| data5 =
| label6 = classification
| data6 = [[File:Yes Check Circle.svg|20px]] Usually reliable for typical purposes
}}
Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
''Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.''
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 110#TechCrunch and Engadget]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Engadget]]
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:Engadget, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Engadget"
| [[Engadget]]
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gr}}
| [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 110#TechCrunch and Engadget|1]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Engadget|A]]
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2012}}
| Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{WP:RSPUSES|engadget.com}}
|}