I am torn on how we should treat cases where the claim is of the form:
I read in this article that:
Ninety percent of slithy toves gyre more than they gimble. (Andersen, 1980)
Is it true that so many slithy toves gyre so much?
Researching such a question is mundane: just look up the article by Andersen.
At first blush, it seems quite pointless to crowdsource that task; it seems to show too little effort by the OP.
Should we put such questions on hold until they provide a reason for not following up themselves?
Sometimes, the reason given is that the information is in a book or behind a paywall - i.e. not immediately available for free. I don't find this particularly convincing; if the OP isn't motivated enough to pay the article writer for their research, why should anyone else be motivated enough to repeat the research?
Sometimes, the reason given is that the OP doesn't know whether to trust an article (or how to decide whether to trust an article). We need to know that information in order to answer at the appropriate level. Otherwise, we fall into the vicious circle of:
Yes. It is true that ninety percent of slithy toves gyre more than they gimble. (Andersen, 1980)