User:Puddleglum2.0/NPP School

Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your NPP School page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working).

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the School, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

Notability

Extended content

PART 1 Notability may be the single most important concept for new page patrol, so your instruction will start with making sure that you have a solid understanding of what notability is and how to apply it. The primary relevant guideline for notability is WP:N: please review that carefully before answering the following questions. General questions Question 1 In your own words, how is notability defined on Wikipedia? Notability in Wikipedia can be defined as that which has garnered attention by the world overtime, and can be verified and cited from multiple and various reliable sources. I would stress more that it is defined on what has garnered attention in reliable sources rather than the world more nebulously, but this answer is still fundamentally correct. Y signed, Rosguill talk 21:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Question 2 Would step by step instructions on how to "Change a car tire" be considered a notable topic in Wikipedia? Why or why not? No; it falls under WP:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a manual. You could go to a site like Wikihow for something like that. Correct Y signed, Rosguill talk 21:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Question 3 What are the differences between the WP:GNG and the subject-specific notability guidelines? How do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article? GNG offers the basic requirements for notability; even if an article meets those requirements it might not meet more specific requirements. Because of this, an article should first be checked for GNG, if it meets that, it should be checked for the specific requirements. N Not quite. GNG is the fundamental metric of notability and applies to all articles. If an article's subject meets GNG, then that article is not required to meet any additional criteria. Subject-specific notability guidelines primarily include two types of information: they may include alternative criteria that a subject may meet that indicate that it is highly likely that the subject meets notability, and they may include specific considerations about what kinds of coverage comprise "significant coverage" in a reliable source for that subject. You could split hairs and argue that this second category of information does in a sense overrule GNG because it may narrow the field of sources that can be used to establish notability, but the key takeaway here is that if you have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, then notability has been demonstrated. signed, Rosguill talk 21:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC) @Rosguill: Answers above. Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 20:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC) I want to ask a few more questions about notability guidelines, and particularly subject-specific notability guidelines, that I don't have prepared quite yet. In the meantime, I would suggest that you read through the various subject-specific notability guidelines, which are all listed at WP:SNG, in order to prepare for the following questions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Subject-specific notability guidelines 1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at WP:SNG) into the following three categories Primarily additional criteria that are likely to indicate notability Events N I would put this in the second category, as most of NEVENT is about stressing that coverage of events should be non-routine and with a broader-than-local geographical scope Films Y I would put this in the third category, as the section on films in production includes some caveats which would push us to not create articles for some films that have a lot of advance coverage Books Y Sports Y Geographic Features Y Primarily additional considerations that define or restrict the nature of coverage or sources required Academics N I would put this in the first category; while a fair amount of this guideline is evaluating sources, it's specifically evaluating citation databases for the purposes of whether NACADEMIC criterion #1 is met. It is not suggesting that we should discount normal coverage in reliable sources Music N I think this is a clear case of the first category WP:NUMBER Y I would put this in the third category Organizations and Companies Y People Y I would put this in the third category web N this is actually a weird case, because it provides only one criterion for inclusion other than meeting GNG (having won a significant award, a fairly banal criterion applicable to many subjects), but doesn't really restrict sources beyond usual. IMO the most useful piece of information in this guideline is its instructions for what to do if notability is not established. For the purposes of this exercise, I would have put it in the first category. Even mix of the previous two categories Astronomical Objects. N I would put this in the first category, as its only source restriction is to specify that being listed in a database is not enough to establish notability (which is generally true for all subjects, as database entries are not significant coverage) 2. Virtually all SNGs that provide additional notability criteria specify that these criteria may indicate that the subject meets notability guidelines. How would you interpret this caveat as a new page reviewer? may means that these criteria must also be used along with the GNG requirements. Just because an article meets the SNG requirements doesn't mean it meets GNG; if it doesn't meet GNG rules, it is not notable. While this is technically correct, let me rephrase the question: what do you think you should do if you come across an article in the new pages queue that meets a SNG (say, WP:NSONG) but does not clearly meet GNG? signed, Rosguill talk 02:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC) An article needs to meet both SNG and GNG requirements, unless specifically stated in the SNG for that category. If an article meets SNG but not clearly GNG, I would get a consensus on the talk page. If it met SNG but clearly violates GNG, it should be PRODDED. This would be a good attitude in most parts of Wikipedia, but for NPP, the status quo is to approve articles that clearly meet SNG (provided that they don't run afoul of copyright or some other reason to automatically reject an article). For cases where an SNG is met but GNG is clearly not met, you can take it to AfD at your discretion (I would skip PROD for a case like that). The easiest example of such a case that I can come up with would be a biography of a football player that has had exactly one appearance in a national match between two English-speaking but small countries (like Fiji) and no other professional history: they meet WP:NFOOTY, but you can conduct a reasonably thorough source search and still come away empty handed. That having been said, you'd probably end up with a Keep consensus at AfD because there's a lot of editors that earnestly believe that NFOOTY is the be-all end-all of notability. For cases where the SNG criteria are subjective, such as WP:NACTOR, nominating borderline cases for deletion is more acceptable. signed, Rosguill talk 03:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC) I'll add that the way I think of SNGs is that they're shortcuts that we can use to streamline our notability evaluations, with a strong consensus from the community to back them and with input from the editors who are most involved with editing these subjects. signed, Rosguill talk 06:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Scenarios For scenarios 1-6 review just based on "subject notability guidelines" (SNG) "alone" for sake of the exercise. Do not consider any sources or other policies. Please answer if the subject meets the SNG guidelines based on the given content below, and specify which notability criteria they meet or fail. For scenarios 7-11 specify which SNGs would establish the subject's notability. Scenario 1 An editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2019 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why? This would not be considered notable per the Sports SNG, which states that The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline Without reliable sources, it cannot be proved that the article meets the GNG. (There is, however, a well-sourced article about the 2024 Summer Olympics that is notable because it uses reliable sources) Y You're right that it doesn't meet the SNG, but the reasoning is only partially correct. NSPORTS says The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below, and one of that criteria is Events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable from which it can be inferred that the games as a whole are also automatically notable. The dealbreaker, however, is that there are no sources whatsoever to support the content. signed, Rosguill talk 07:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC) A follow up question we'll go over this more in detail later, but say that the article was 2040 Summer Olympics. What would be the correct action to take, assuming that you can't find any sources online? I think I would nominate it for speedy deletion under A7, no indication of importance. Mm, that would not be the right decision. For one thing, claiming to be an Olympic game actually is a claim of importance. When we get new articles created too early for future installments regularly occurring events, we redirect to the article about the event in general. So in this case, the correct decision in this situation is to convert the article to a redirect pointing at Summer Olympic Games. We'll go over deletion vs. redirect solutions in some more lessons later on. signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Scenario 2 A New York city based 2019 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund. No, a grant is not enough to establish notability in organizations. Y there are essentially no shortcuts for companies, and for good reason. A lot of coverage about companies is not independent, and trade magazines will often publish PR (in better trade magazines, the PR will be alongside actual editorial pieces), and companies try to use Wikipedia for advertising. We need to be very strict with these articles. signed, Rosguill talk 07:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Scenario 3 Maycee Barber who is a female Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 7-0 and she is currently ranked #12 in the women's flyweight division. No, she has not met any of the 4 criteria listed at WP:NBOX. N The relevant guideline here is WP:NMMA, as she meets criterion #1 with the first source. signed, Rosguill talk 07:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Scenario 4 An upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, was reported will be in production in December 2019 and to be released on August 2020 in the cinemas. No, it has not yet started principal photography, according to WP:NFF it must have started principal photography. Y Scenario 5 A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2019 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy. No, because according to WP:NPOL Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. The local newspapers are not enough to establish notability. Y Scenario 6 A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify. No, I don't see that he meets any of the 12 criteria listed at WP:SINGER. Y Scenario 7 Carlos Alós-Ferrer WP:NPROF Y Scenario 8 Alistair Overeem WP:NMMA Y Scenario 9 Jennifer Lopez WP:SINGER Y, WP:NACTOR would also be applicable, although the case for SINGER is stronger signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Scenario 10 Three Mile Island accident WP:EVENT Y Scenario 11 Persepolis The closest I could find is WP:GEOLAND, I didn't find anything that was directly related to cities. Y, GEOLAND covers this explicitly as a formerly legally recognized, populated place that was since abandoned. It also meets another NGEO criterion below, the first criterion of GEOFEAT, which is that the location has been recognized by a reputable international body (in this case, UNESCO) as a site of significant cultural heritage. signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC) @Rosguill: OK, answers above. Can you please ping me when you are done checking the answers? I have a large watchlist due to counter-vandalism. Thanks! Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 18:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0: done grading this section and the extra follow up question about the summer Olympics. signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Extended content

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, claims made in articles should be supported by independent (secondary), reliable sources for verification. Please read WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:RSP, WP:V, WP:PROVEIT, WP:Primary, WP:Secondary, and WP:Tertiary. For exercises that require you to evaluate sources, you can contact WP:RX if you could not access the sources yourself either on the web due to paywalls or offline-only sources. Exercises 1. Please complete the table below Topic Definition 5 Examples Comment by Trainer Reliable source A reliable source is published material published through a reliable publication process, or written by an author that is generally regarded as authoritative, or both. Both of these options should be readily explainable if questioned. (example)The Guardian newspaper The New York Times newspaper The Wall Street Journal newspaper The Washington Post newspaper The London Times The Los Angeles Times Y correct, although I'd add that academic sources are generally preferable to newspapers when searching for sources. As a wise editor once said, newspapers are our best sources for what is happening now, they are not or best sources for what has happened in the past. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC) User generated sources The source is self-published. IMDb website Facebook website Twitter website Instagram website Wikipedia website Y, blogs by people who are not experts in the relevant field also fall in this category Non Independent source Biased source that is close to the subject and has interest in it. Elon Musk when writing SpaceX Joe Biden when writing Hunter Biden LA City Council when writing the LA Mayor. Shcolastic When writing about the Harry Potter franchise. Jeff Bezos When writing about Amazon Inc. Y, although I would stress the conflict of interest as being the key factor here rather than bias. The Times may have pro-UK and pro-Tory biases, but this does not generally comprise a conflict of interest in their reporting on the same level as the examples that you gave signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC) 2. Please complete the table below Type Definition Examples (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary) Comment by Trainer Primary Source written by people directly involved with the topic. The spam filter will not let me link to any scientific journal. I tried a lot. Thoughts? Weird, it seems to let me add them https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-21640-001 At any rate, if you're looking for primary scientific sources, you could just post paper titles and I'll look into them. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Secondary Generally the best type of reliable source; a Secondary source is one written by someone who is authoritative on the subject but not directly related with it. (example) Los Angeles Times The Washington Post The Times The Boston Globe The Wall Street Journal Y I'm actually not sure how I feel about the given example here, as newspapers generally have a mix of primary and secondary information (e.g. quotes and interviews will have primary information as well). That having been said, the sources you listed definitely do include significant amounts of secondary reporting signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Tertiary Sources that summarize the secondary and primary sources. (example) Encyclopædia Britannica World Book Encyclopedia Wikipedia The Canadian Encyclopedia Encyclopedia.com Y, Wikipedia is an interesting source to include in this section. While good articles will be tertiary in nature, poorly written articles may include original research to an extent where it may be inaccurate to call it tertiary. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC) 3. Please complete the table below Subject Primary Secondary Tertiary Comment by Trainer Example: Art [1] Van Gogh's Letters [2] Smithsonian on Van Gogh Vincent van Gogh Wikipedia article on Van Gogh Y, although just linking to the Wikipedia for the tertiary source is a bit lazy History Herodotus' Histories [3] Commentary on Herodotus' Histories Histories (Herodotus) Wikipedia article Y Science On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin [4] commentary on Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species Wikipedia article Y Athletes [5] Russell Wilson Twitter Profile [6] Washington Post on Russell Wilson Russell Wilson Y @Rosguill: Answers + Problem above. Thank you for your time, Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 20:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0: good work on this section. I wasn't able to recreate the error for the scientific articles though. Could you just post the titles of relevant papers? Note that while many academic papers are primary, some are secondary sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC) @Rosguill: Thank you for grading this, I actually didn't try linking to that site. I tried like 8 or 9 other sites but they couldn't get through the filter. Anyway, I will use that site I guess. Answers soon. Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 23:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC) I can't think of why we would be filtering links to academic journals. Could the issue be that you tried to add too many URLs in one edit? signed, Rosguill talk 00:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC) @Rosguill: Perhaps. I was trying to add all 15 URLs in one go. That could be it. Thanks, Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 05:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC) In the tables below, please indicate "y" for yes or "n" for no after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n" for each source. 4 Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania (1937) Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 – April 9, 1959) was an American architect, interior designer, writer, and educator. Wright believed in designing structures that were in harmony with humanity and its environment, a philosophy he called organic architecture. His creative period spanned more than 70 years. He works includes The Guggenheim, swirling, snail-shaped museum in the middle of Manhattan. Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture." This is one of Wright's most famous private residences (completed 1937), was built for Mr. and Mrs. Edgar J. Kaufmann, Sr., at Mill Run, Pennsylvania. Constructed over a 30-foot waterfall, it was designed according to Wright's desire to place the occupants close to the natural surroundings. The house was intended to be more of a family getaway, rather than a live-in home. Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? https://nypost.com/2017/06/07/frank-lloyd-wright-was-a-house-builder-and-homewrecker/ The source is major newspaper The source is reputable published source The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes https://franklloydwright.org/work/ it is the architect's blog it is an authoritative source it is the architect's blog. ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20080302053743/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm secondary source regularly published by Bloomberg, a reliable news source. covers the subject well. ✔ Yes https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC secondary source. , the author seems to be authoritative on the subject this book is one of the authors only books that I can find. ✘ 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}}. References Frank Lloyd Wright grading Y Y Y N, the assessments of independence and reliability are accurate, but the source being inaccessible to you does not mean that it is inadmissible for notability.In some cases, we're allowed to make notability calls based on the possibility that notable coverage exists (per WP:NPOSSIBLE). In this case, we have a biography from a reputable publisher; it can be assumed that it contains significant coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 07:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC) New page patrol is a triage process: the goal is not to find every little flaw with an article, but to assess the state of an article, determine whether it belongs in the encyclopedia, and move on. This does not mean that we can be sloppy, but rather that we can prioritize checking easy to evaluate sources, and only moving on to obscure ones if necessary. If you were actually evaluating an article on the basis of these four sources, you could conclude that GNG was met just from the NYPost and BusinessWeek coverage and you wouldn't necessarily have to look up the book (although you should still follow up on sources being used to support controversial or dubious claims). If you have an article where you see 3 garbage sources followed by an inaccessible source, it may be acceptable to go straight to AfD on the basis that even if that last source is solid, it still isn't enough to meet GNG (although if a book source appears to have the subject as its primary topic and is published by a reputable publisher and/or author, you should make an effort to request the source rather than going to straight to deletion, because that is a lot of coverage and additional coverage almost certainly exists if it is legitimate). If you have an article where an inaccessible source would make the difference in whether the article meets GNG, then it's better to not review the article and leave it to someone else if you don't have the time or ability to retrieve the source yourself. signed, Rosguill talk 07:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 5 Jordan Lennon (born February 22, 2000), is a British film producer and actor. Lennon is currently a member of BAFTA. He continues to work aside 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros, Wicked Wales, Capture Studios, Cineworld, Paramount Pictures, and Rockefeller Foundation. At age 16, the Vice President of 20th Century Fox, Paul Higginson. Who previously worked on Star Wars, Titanic, and Independence Day took on Jordan and Rowan Snow as a mentor. In December 2018, Jordan and Rowan finished British Film Academy. Jordan lived in Skelmersdale for 10 years before moving to Rhyl, North Wales. He's currently writing 'Stranger in the Night' scrreenplay for Warner Brothers. Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8902348/ tertiary source able to be edited by all and sundry. regularly updated, popular site. ✘ No http://www.bafta.org/wales written by people who are not related to subject published by a well-reputed association; not open to the public One of the biggest awards associations in Wales ✔ Yes https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125 Written by the subject The subject is definitely an authoritative source on himself Subject's own profile ✘ No https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/ secondary source written by reputed editorial board database of all voice actors ✔ Yes 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}}. References Jordan Lennon grading I'm resetting answers for this question, as some appear to have been written in error (information clearly about BAFTA was listed in the entry for the LinkedIn profile). However, other answers were just plain wrong. I would suggest heeding the words of footnote #5 at WP:N as an example of coverage that falls short of significant: not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined signed, Rosguill talk 07:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0: please try answering this question again. signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC) @Rosguill: Yes, I will get to that Thursday morning sometime. Sorry, I've been really busy lately, and what time I had on WP I've been putting toward copy-editing for the Guild. Thanks for your patience. Puddleglum 2.0 05:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC) @Rosguill: OK, I answered them. You seem to have deleted the "justification" section for the answer, I will fill that in if needed also but right now it isn't there. Thanks. Puddleglum 2.0 16:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0: oops my bad, I've readded the justification parameter. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Actual grading Y, you're correct about the reliability (which is the most important part), but the coverage isn't significant. Remember that significant coverage is not a measure of how well-known a source is, it's a measure of the depth of the actual coverage written in the source. An article in an obscure academic journal with no citations that discusses a topic in depth has more significant coverage than a NYPost article read by hundreds of thousands that just has a photo gallery from a red carpet event. I'd argue that as a crowdsourced website, it's not independent either because there's no way to verify that the subject (or an affiliate) wasn't involved in writing the article N You're right that BAFTA is a prestigious institution. The problem is that the linked article says nothing whatsoever about Jordan Lennon. When evaluating sources, we need to verify that they actually have significant coverage of the subject Y basically correct, although given the strong incentive for subjects to misrepresent themselves in a more favorable light, I would hesitate to call someone's LinkedIn page "reliable". N again, database entries are not significant coverage @Puddleglum2.0:, You seem to have a decent grasp on identifying when a source is and isn't independent of a subject, but you haven't quite grasped what it means for a source to have significant coverage of a subject. We should work on that a bit more. In the meantime, read over my feedback carefully, then explain in your own words what it means for a source to have significant coverage of a subject signed, Rosguill talk 05:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC) @Rosguill: Oook, that makes a bit more sense. So basically significant coverage is not how popular the coverage it's, it is how in depth the coverage is. so if the source covers the subject in depth and meaningfully, it can be counted as significant. That actually makes a lot more sense, you're right, I was a bit hung up on that. Thanks, Puddleglum 2.0 05:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Y @Puddleglum2.0: that's a solid definition. I've added more questions at the bottom. Feel free to take them at your own pace. signed, Rosguill talk 05:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC) @Rosguill: Thanks much, I will take a look tomorrow, about to hit the sack right now. :) thanks a lot, Puddleglum 2.0 05:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC) 6 Sonny Bill Williams 2010 Sonny William Williams (born 3 August 1985), who is a Muslim, is a New Zealand All blacks rugby union footballer, Williams was a Marist Saints junior when he was spotted playing in Auckland by Bulldogs talent scout John Ackland. In 2002 he was offered a contract and moved to Sydney (as the youngest player to ever sign with an NRL club) to play in the Bulldogs' junior grades. Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7505117/2019-Rugby-World-Cup-Sonny-Bill-Williams-expecting-fourth-child.html secondary new source regularly published; written by authoritative people the article is not focused on the player being a Muslim; it is about their 4th baby. ✘ No http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108 primary source it is the teams website one of the most authoritative sources you can get ✘ No http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308 secondary source not about the player National news source ✘ No http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html secondary source regularly published source not a national news outlet ✘ 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}}. References Sonny Bill Williams grading N wrong on multiple counts: while the Daily Mail is independent, it is not a reliable source. In fact, it's one of the most notoriously untrustworthy sources on Wikipedia (although that has more to do with the controversy surrounding measures used to keep people from citing it, rather than it truly being the worst source out there). You can find its entry at WP:RSP, or use a fancy template (RSP entry). We can dismiss it from consideration for GNG already, but I do want to touch on the answer you put for significance: notability applies to subjects, not to article content. Thus, it doesn't really matter that the source only tangentially mentions that Williams is Muslim, even if it's being used to support that claim (of course, if a source outright doesn't support a claim, then you should note and potentially address that). signed, Rosguill talk 08:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Y, although an actual book-length biography would probably be more authoritative Y I think you have the right intuition here, but your justification is incorrect. Despite being published in the NZ Herald, this source actually isn't independent because the only information about Williams is his teammate's unedited response in an interview. Keep in mind that significant coverage refers to the depth and quality of the coverage itself, not the prestige of the publication (although for very small publications, their lack of prestige may be a reason to doubt their reliability). You already identified in your answer to whether it was reliable that this source has basically no usable information about Williams: that should be your answer to significance. N The Sydney Morning Herald is one of Australia's oldest papers of record, and is no less a national news outlet than The New York Times. That having been said, being a "regularly published source" is not the definition of a reliable source. You seem to have had some difficulty evaluating source reliability. This is an important part of being a new page reviewer, and we'll do some more practice on that later. For now, here's an abbreviated list of steps to take when evaluating sources: Check The perennial sources list, a list of sources whose respective reliability have been thoroughly discussed by editors Check WP:NPPSG, a much less authoritative but much larger guide that is intended for new page reviewers to quickly look up sources that have been discussed before Search WP:RSN for past discussions about this source See if the source has a Wikipedia article, which may have information that can help you assess reliability Conduct your own research as to whether the source is reliable. We'll work on this later If you still can't tell if a source is reliable or not and evaluating this source accurately is critical to completing this article's review, start a discussion at WP:RSN. This generally isn't the best idea if you're just trying to assess if the source counts toward GNG (since you should probably have an idea of whether that's the case based on the other available sources), but you may want to start a discussion there if an article's subject is notable but has controversial or dubious claims cited to unfamiliar sources. In the case of the Sydney Morning Herald, you would have found discussions treating SMH as a reliable source by searching on RSN in step 3. I took a citation to one of these discussions and added an entry to NPPSG, so it's listed there too now (generally a stronger citation would be preferred, but the SMH has a strong reputation and the only reason it wasn't already listed is that its reliability has rarely, if ever, been formally challenged on Wikipedia). signed, Rosguill talk 08:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 7. David Petraeus David Petraeus David Howell Petraeus AO (/pɪˈtreɪ.əs/; born November 7, 1952) is a retired United States Army general and public official. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011, until his resignation on November 9, 2012 after his affair with Paula Broadwell was reported. Petraeus was born in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, the son of Sixtus Petraeus (1915–2008), a sea captain from Franeker, Netherlands. In 2003, Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the fall of Baghdad Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/ secondary source consensus at the RS Noticeboard covers the affair in-depth ✔ Yes http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch secondary source listed at PS Noticeboard covers topic in depth ✔ Yes https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893 secondary source In this case I believe Huffpost is reliable, I read it's entrry at PS, and there are exceptions where it would not be reliable, but in this case it does not have any political slant I believe. covers topic in depth ✔ Yes https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012 tertiary source listed at PS Noticeboard as unreliable. covers what needs to be covered well. ✘ No http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005 secondary source listed at PS as reliable. says what it needs to say. ✔ Yes https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html secondary source listed as one of the most reliable sources. covers what it needs to cover well ✔ Yes http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html secondary source listed at PS noticeboard covers topic well. ✔ Yes 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}}. References David Petraeus grading Y N this is a primary source, as it's simply video footage of Petraeus being sworn in without any editorial commentary. The coverage is thus also not significant, because any inference that we make from viewing the video essentially comprises original research. Y, although do note that even politically biased sources can be considered reliable, provided that they have a track record of fact checking in that given scenario Y, you're right that it's unreliable, but it's also not significant coverage, as it's a database entry Y, although I wouldn't say "it covers what it needs to cover". The correct answer here is that it provides a significant depth of coverage about the subject Y, this is an interview, which is generally considered to be a primary source, unless there is significant pushback from the interviewer (e.g. correcting or otherwise directly challenging the interviewee's statements). However, the 2 paragraph introduction in the gray box at the top of the article is secondary coverage, and is significant as well. Y signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC) 8. Martina Hingis Martina Hingis is a Swiss former professional tennis player. She won five Grand Slam singles titles. Hingis was one of the highest-paid female athletes in 2000. She retired in November 2007 after being hampered by a hip injury for several months and testing positive for a metabolite of cocaine during that year's Wimbledon Championships, which led to a two-year suspension from the sport. Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? https://www.instagram.com/martinahingis80/ primary source authoritative source 1) does not say what the article writer wants it to say 2) not even a complete sentence. ✘ No https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-us-open-hingis-20170910-story.html secondary source prestigious news institution covers topic well. ✔ Yes https://books.google.com.my/books?id=4x3fQ920EUMC&pg=PA197&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false secondary source authoritative author in-depth coverage ✔ Yes https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/21171438/tennis-another-twist-bizarre-career-martina-hingis secondary source authoritative writers says what it needs to say ✔ Yes https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/nov/01/tennis secondary source listed at PS Noticeboard as reliable covers topic in-depth ✔ Yes 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}}. References @Rosguill: Alrighty, here's the answers. Thanks for your patience, I was ridiculously busy in real life. I should be able to get tasks done quicker the rest of the week. Thanks again! Puddleglum 2.0 19:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC) Martina Hingis grading Y Y Y Y Y great job! signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC) Refresher: sources and notability guidelines Puddleglum2.0 Ok, now that you've more or less got the hang of identifying whether or not a given source contributes to meeting GNG, can you apply your knowledge of GNG and SNGs? For each of the above subjects assessed in the previous section, please identify whether they meet notability guidelines (and how/why), based solely on the sources included on this page (i.e. don't go looking for more sources) signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC) Frank Lloyd Wright Yes, meets the SNG. Frank Lloyd Wright meets all four of the criteria listed at the SNG for architects. Jordan Lennon No, does not meet either WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER, both of which are relevant. Sonny Bill Williams Yep, meets WP:RLN David Petraeus Yes, meets WP:NPOL Martina Hingis Yes, meets WP:NTENNIS @Rosguill: Answers above. Puddleglum 2.0 03:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0: All correct. Now, ignoring SNGs, which of the above would meet GNG purely based on the sources cited here? signed, Rosguill talk 03:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC) @Rosguill: Frank Lloyd Wright, David Petraeus, and Martina Hingis? I don't know if I understand that question the way it is intended to be, but with my understanding that is the answer. Thanks, Puddleglum 2.0 03:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC) I was looking to assess your ability to evaluate whether available coverage adds up to GNG, and not just if a specific source counts toward GNG. I would say that your answer is conservatively correct: Wright, Petraeus and Hingis clearly meet GNG on the basis of the sources cited on this page. Jordan Lennon does not. That leaves Sonny Bill Williams. Now, on paper Williams does not currently meet GNG, as there's only one source that could be considered compliant. However, that source is [7], a full-length article almost entirely about the subject in a top-tier national newspaper. It is extremely rare for coverage like that to exist without there being additional reputable coverage out there, and thus it would be acceptable to give an article a pass per WP:NPOSSIBLE if you see a source like that. If the source was less detailed, or in a more niche publication (either a local paper or a sports- or rugby-specific paper), then it would be unwise to make this same assumption. Anyway, good job! I'll put up more questions shortly. signed, Rosguill talk 03:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC) How to identify a reliable source Puddleglum2.0 I was looking through various WP spaces trying to find a guide on how to evaluate whether a source is reliable or not in the wild, and while I was able to find some essays and guidelines about specific topics that require special care when assessing reliability (WP:MEDRS, WP:SCIRS, WP:HISTRS), I wasn't able to find one for sources in general. I'm going to ask around to see if I missed anything, but if that fails then I'm probably going to end up writing such a guide myself. In the meantime, let's move on to the next section of the course. signed, Rosguill talk 04:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Content Policy

Extended content

Article titles Please read WP:TITLE and answer the questions below 1. Article name "Hannibal Barca" - Does the article name need to be change? and Why? (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer) Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general and statesman who is widely considered one of the greatest military commanders in history. His father, Hamilcar Barca, was a leading Carthaginian commander during the First Punic War (264–241 BC). References Answer: Needs to be changed; per this policy, the article title should display what the subject is known as. Hannibal Barxa is generally known as simply Hannibal; the page "Hannibal Barca" could be a redirect or something. Puddleglum 2.0 04:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Y 2. Article name "Magic Johnson". Does the article name need to be change? and Why?(please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer) Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is an American retired professional basketball player and former president of basketball operations of the Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He played point guard for the Lakers for 13 seasons. References Answer: That name is good; again, per the same policy, the title should be what the subject is popularly known as; the less should contain the full name; this does, the title is good. Y @Rosguill: answers above, I am very sorry it took so long to get to, what time I have on Wikipedia is nowadays directed a lot toward the GOCE and writing for the Signpost , but I should have a bit more time now to Dr for to this page. Thank you so much for your patience, and congrats on the adminship, you'll do (you are doing) great! Puddleglum 2.0 04:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Puddleglum2.0, good work on this section, and thanks for the congratulations. More questions are below. Biographies of living persons Please read WP:BLP and answer the questions below. 3. Please explain if the content of the below text is acceptable for inclusion and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer) Conor Anthony McGregor (born 14 July 1988) is an Irish professional mixed martial artist and boxer. His is a former Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) featherweight and lightweight champion. On 15 August 2019, TMZ Sports published a video that appeared to show McGregor punching a man at The Marble Arch Pub in Dublin. The incident happened on 6 April and was originally reported by Irish media, although without the video that showed the attack. Irish police stated in April that they had opened an investigation. McGregor was charged with assault and first appeared in court on 11 October 2019. In April 2019, McGregor is the father of Terri Murray's son, Clodagh. Murray bedded McGregor in 2017 at his hotel after the Aintree Grand National just four weeks bofore McGregor's girlfriend Dee Devlin gave birth to their son. References Answer: Violation; the last paragraph is a violation of WP:GRAPEVINE I believe. Puddleglum 2.0 16:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Y 4. Please explain if the content of the below text is acceptable for inclusion and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer) Diana Nyad (née Sneed; born August 22, 1949) is an American author, journalist, motivational speaker, and long-distance swimmer who lives in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. and could be contacted at +0-202-456-6213. Nyad gained national attention in 1975 when she swam around Manhattan (28 mi or 45 km) and in 1979 when she swam from North Bimini, The Bahamas, to Juno Beach, Florida (102 mi (164 km)). In 2013, on her fifth attempt and at age 64, she became the first person confirmed to swim from Cuba to Florida without the aid of a shark cage, swimming from Havana to Key West (110 mi or 180 km). References Answer: I can't see any policy that explicitly forbids it, but I know it isn't good to list phone numbers. Besides that, it's ok, in would simply remove the number, even if it's incorrect. Puddleglum 2.0 17:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Y the short cut you're looking for is WP:BLPPRIVACY. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC) @Rosguill: answers above. Puddleglum 2.0 17:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0: graded and added questions signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Images copyright Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. Please answer the questions below and (1) provide an explanation based on Wikipedia guidelines and (2) provide the guidelines/links in your answer. 5. Could this image-1 be uploaded into C:Main Page and use in Wikipedia? and Why. Answer- Explanation: Yes, it complies with policy. Answer - link/guideline: The website the image is found at is listed here. 6. Could this image-2 be uploaded into C:Main Page and use in Wikipedia? and Why. Answer- Explanation: Yep Answer - link/guideline: The website is a Public Domain Site, the policy says that is OK. 7. Could this image-3 be uploaded into C:Main Page and use in Wikipedia? Answer- Explanation: Yes- the website is full of images that are in the Public Domain. Answer - link/guideline: Website listed here. 8. Could this image-4 be uploaded into C:Main Page and use in Wikipedia? and Why. Answer- Explanation: No; it is not released to the Public Domain. Answer - link/guideline: From the Public Domain image Resources Page: "Public Domain resources should have either the Public Domain Mark 1.0 or the CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)" I could find no such tag on the website or for the image. 9 Certain types of images are a giveaway of COI and/or paid editing, despite not being direct violations of our image policies. Can you guess what kinds of images these are? Images that advertise a certain company with like posters or something? I'm sorry, I find images tricky to deal with, they aren't eactly my forte, so forgive me if these answers are really wrong. Images are tricky, and this was a tricky question because AFAIK this isn't actually written into any guideline (and certainly not the image use guidelines). The answer here is that images that look like professional headshots are often an indicator of COI, particularly if they are claimed as "own work" by an editor that also contributed to the article they are included in (such as the one on our article for Genny Uzoma). The reason for this is because such images are rarely ever released to the public domain and usually remain the property of either the photographer or the subject, although it is possible that the editor legitimately reached out to the subject and asked them for a photograph, which is allowed. However, you'll notice that for our biographies of very well-known individuals, we actually prefer more candid photographs (consider Henry Rollins or Stevie Wonder), because such photos are often a more neutral presentation (and in some cases are also more informative because they may portray the subject doing the thing that they are notable for. signed, Rosguill talk 22:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC) @Rosguill: answers above... Puddleglum 2.0 22:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0: it looks like you skipped a question, but otherwise your answers are correct. signed, Rosguill talk 22:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC) OK, fixed, sorry about that. Puddleglum 2.0 22:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Neutral point of view Please read WP:NPOV and MOS:PUFF. Point out the WP:NPOV words/phrases and rewrite the paragraph in Questions 9& 10 from a neutral point of view. 10. She is a brilliant boxer with a rare and exceptional beauty. She turned Pro at the age of 19 after winning one amateur fight on December 14, 2013 where she destroyed her opponent in 20 seconds. Her talent and marketability made her a fighter to watch right out the gate and she fought under XXX promotion on her next fight on February 2014. Answer: WP:IMPARTIAL A professional boxer, she earned her status as a proffesional at age 19 after winning an amateur fight. This won her such acclaim that she was able to fight under XXX promotion for her next fight a year later. Y This is an improvement, and if I came across a sentence like this in an article I may not tag it as needing corrections. However, I'd avoid phrases such as "such acclaim" (unless multiple reliable sources specifically attest to this), and would instead phrase the second sentence as The following year, she fought under XXX promotion. You should probably have left in the year for the first claim, since unless the subject's age is unusual and noteworthy, the year is more meaningful than their age (although you can still include the age if you put the year). signed, Rosguill talk 23:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC) 11. He is a popular, acclaimed Bulgarian actor, who loves by all who have watched his films. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry since he was at the tender, innocent of the age of 14 and he has featured in 44 films. Answer: WP:SUBJECTIVE He is an acclaimed Bulgarian actor who was born in Veliko Tarnovo. He began acting at age 14, and since then has been featured in over forty films Y Avoid phrases like "over forty films". In this case, since we don't have any additional information to work with, you could just say has featured in various films, although in the case of an actual article, the best strategy is to identify their most significant or well-known roles and specifically mention those (e.g. featured in Movie: The Movie, as well as other films. Additionally, don't include words like "acclaimed" unless they're backed up by strong sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC) 12. Please read WP:DUE and in your own words, please explain why it is important to provide balance and due weight content in an article. Answer: <s>It is importnat to provide balance because Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, where a neutral point of view is important. If there is no nuetrality, it will be impossible to actually gain knowledge from Wikipedia articles.</s> WP:DUE is an important policy because it prevents undue weight from being given to minority sources that do not have prominent supporters. All sources should be major or have prominent supporters, to prevent fringe theories and stuff like that. N this is a general justification of neutrality, not of DUE. Please try again. I'd also add that your answer is actually incorrect on its own terms: it is entirely possible for useful encyclopedias to be non-neutral, in fact virtually all professionally published encyclopedias are non-neutral. Neutrality is necessary on Wikipedia because it is a crowdsourced project written by non-expert volunteers: we don't have the editorial oversight or authority to decide on one POV versus another, so neutrality is necessary in order to avoid inappropriate and unaccountable editorializing. signed, Rosguill talk 23:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC) @Rosguill: OK, answers above. Puddleglum 2.0 23:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0: graded. Please try again for question 12. I'm going to add some more neutrality exercises in a bit. signed, Rosguill talk 23:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Extra neutrality practice For the following paragraphs, identify if they need any edits for neutrality, and if so, draft a corrected version of the paragraph. 1. Goessling is member of the Cancer Genetics Program and the Gastrointestinal Malignancies Program, both at the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. He is also advisory dean of the Irving M. London Society for HST students. He has been hailed for his accessbility, compassion and knowledge and his remarkable patient care, even while he has had to fight against his own aggressive malignancy. References Goessling is a member of two cancer research programs at the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. He also advises HST students at the Irving M. London Society. His accessbility, compassion, and knowledge has been praised, even as he fought against his own cancer. Y I think you actually made more changes than necessary here. The main issue was that last sentence. I probably would have rephrased accessibility, compassion and knowledge has been praised... to something likeHe has been praised for continuing to work diligently despite his own cancer diagnosis, lists of positive adjectives are rarely necessary, but it's not a big deal. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 2. Nathaniel Coleman (born January 1, 1997) is an American sport climber. He became the first American male climber to qualify to compete in the Olympic Games after advancing to the final at IFSC Combined Qualifier Toulouse 2019 in November–December, 2019. Coleman won three straight USA Climbing Bouldering Open National Championships, from 2016 to 2018, and finished 2nd in the 2019 competition. He also finished second in the 2019 Combined Invitational. References I think this one has NPOV. Y 3. The Disque Foundation is a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit created by Dr. Karl "Fritz" Disque in 2012 in response to a medical mission trip to Hati during the 2010 earthquake. The goal of the Disque Foundation is to further advance the quality of education and health care to under served communities both domestic and abroad. Through mission work and free online courses, the Disque Foundation has empowered over 1,000,000 people around the world with life saving skills. References The Disque Foundation is a nonprofit organization created by Dr. Karl Disque in 2012. It was founded as a response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Its mission is to improve education and healthcare to impoverished communities. Y, although I don't know that you needed to split the first sentence into two separate sentences. It may also be valid to keep the mention of "mission work and online courses", as the fact that they do both onsite and online work is neutral and may be relevant, but supported by the current source it's not DUE. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 4. Patrick John Harrington, QC is a Welsh criminal law barrister and Queen's Counsel. He has acted in more than 250 homicide trials, and has been noted for work on some of "the largest and most complex fraud cases in the UK". He has been referred to as one of Wales' "most prominent" lawyers. References I believe this is NPOV. Y I personally hate the use of "more than X" or "over X" as it generally has a positive connotation, but in this case it seems acceptable. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 5. Danielle and Jennifer grew up Harleysville, Pennsylvania and started out in the entertainment industry at very young ages. Danielle was the first to get the acting bug and Jennifer was soon to follow. Danielle started acting at the age of 5 and landed her first commercial at the age of 6. Danielle's talent was soon recognized and she secured a role on Broadway in Les Miserables at the age of just 7 years old. Danielle is also a member of The Broadway Kids and can be heard on their latest album, "Hey Mr. DJ!". Jennifer was of course wasn't far behind and landed starring roles in Law & Order:SVU, Law & Order: CI and All My Children. Both sisters have a long list of voice-over credentials including voice-over characters in Blue's Clues, and jingles for (Hess Truck(Spanish), Curad, Charmin, Pepsi). They have been seen in TV commercials as well such as Wendy's, Ethan Allen, ASPCA, AT&T, and Monster.com. Danielle has performed in the 2003 Off-Broadway musical "The Alchemists". Danielle and Jennifer shared the stage in the Off-Broadway shows "A" for Adultery and The House of Bernarda Alba. References I don't know if this is even a notable topic, but it is ridiculously WP:PUFF , so much so I'm not sure how to rewrite it... I think it would be possible to rewrite it, but honestly in cases like this you probably shouldn't do anything other than tag for neutrality, since even if it is notable there's a solid chance that you'd be doing cleanup on a commissioned paid PR piece. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC) @Rosguill: Answers above. Puddleglum 2.0 16:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC) Puddleglum2.0 Good work! signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC) No original research Please read WP:OR and WP:NOT and answer the questions below 12. In your own words, why is Wikipedia not a platform for publishing original research? Answer: Because it is hard to verify if it is true, and because an encyclopedia is a place to get reliably sourced information on a topic. Y, but this is only a partial answer. Could you explain why interpreting a primary source, a specific form of original research, is not allowed? signed, Rosguill talk 05:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Because it is really easy to misuse interpretation and misinterpret important sources. @Puddleglum2.0: OK, but why is this the case for primary sources but not secondary or tertiary sources? signed, Rosguill talk 22:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Because those sources are generally direct and really hard to misinterpret? I'm sorry, this part isn't really clicking with me yet... Puddleglum2.0, The reason why is because we also rely on secondary/tertiary sources to provide context and assess the relative weight to be assigned to different aspects of a subject. A primary source does not have the necessary distance from the subject for us to be able to properly assess weight based purely on that source––in essence, primary sources require expert knowledge to be able to reliably assess these things, and we cannot assume that a Wikipedia editor has this level of expertise. So, we can cite primary sources if they provide additional information to complement relevant coverage in secondary sources, but we can't rely on them alone. To give a concrete example, let's say we're assessing Religion in Egypt; if secondary sources repeatedly emphasize the importance of the religious demographic results of the Arab Barometer 2019 survey (a primary source), then it would be appropriate to also include a citation to that source when providing specific figures from that section of the AB survey in order to allow readers to more easily access and verify the information. However, it would be inappropriate to simply start with the AB survey and start reporting its results without confirming them in a secondary source, because it is not our place to assess the raw survey data on our own. Does that make sense? signed, Rosguill talk 20:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Interesting -- thanks a lot, that clears it up. I guess I didn't quite get the part about context. Thanks again, this has really helped me. Puddleglum 2.0 20:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 13. Please provide one example of a short phrase or an opinion in an article comprising original research, and explain in your own words why it is OR. Answer: this article only cites one source, but I'm sure it combines some sources with original research without actually citing anything. You're not wrong, but this is a rather trivial example. As a follow up, find me an example of each of the following: Improper synthesis of multiple sources Improper use of a primary source You may have an easier time finding some examples by looking through the original research noticeboard, but if you do get examples from there, please find one that is either a point of disagreement between editors or an example from an article that is being listed on that noticeboard that has not been discussed on the noticeboard. signed, Rosguill talk 05:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Does this article fulfill these requirements? It was posted on the noticeboard, but I don't see any discussion there. It seemed to synthesize an improperly use primary sources. Did you want specific examples within the article of this though? Thanks for your help. I skimmed through the article and didn't see any obvious examples of either type of OR in the current revision, although older revisions may have issues. I do want you to provide examples, as the purpose of this exercise is to practice identifying OR in the wild. OR is one of the hardest types of misinformation to catch in NPP, but it is also one of the most important, expressly because a casual reader may not realize that they're being misinformed. Before you go and find another example, let's discuss Protests of 2019 a bit more: from skimming the citations in this revision, I see two sources which are clearly primary, but neither of which appears to introduce an OR issue. Can you spot them and explain why OR is not an issue in these cases? signed, Rosguill talk 22:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC) That was a lot of citations! I believe these two citations: [8] and [9] are OK primary sources, becuase they are records of the official government policies that caused the protests. If its a policy, I don't think one has to get a secondary copy of it. I may have missed a couple citations in the 150 or so, but those are the two that jumped out at me. Thanks, Puddleglum2.0 16:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Y @Puddleglum2.0: You're right that those sources are primary, and that they are used appropriately, but your reasoning is a little off. The main reason that using a primary source here is appropriate is because the events in question (the CAA bill in India and Sudan's constitutional reform announcement) were already discussed in secondary sources in the context of the article's topic; we're following the secondary source's lead as to whether these primary sources are relevant. At this point, the primary source is additional information for a reader curious about it, but we are not directly relying on the primary sources to establish that these events occurred or that they are related to the article's subject. Another example of an ok use of a primary source is citation 101. In this case, while the source is an opinion piece written by someone who participated in a protest, the claim that is actually being supported–that Boris Johnson was elected PM–is totally uncontroversial, so it's not a major issue. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Additional question I just came across Virginie Morgon while patrolling, and while the subject appears to meet GNG, there's still some issues with neutrality and OR. Can you identify some examples of improper citations to primary sources in this revision of the article? signed, Rosguill talk 00:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC) The two Eurazeo citations and then the CareNews one. I can't read the French citations, so I can't tell you about those, but I don't think that they are even primary sources. Puddleglum2.0, Correct, although when reviewing articles, you should make the effort to run foreign language content through Google translate before giving up on them. It's not perfect, but it's often enough information to at least make an educated guess on whether the content is being used appropriately. French in particular is a language that generally translates decently. Can you also answer the final question about Protests of 2019 above? signed, Rosguill talk 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) @Rosguill: Answers above, thanks for your patience. Puddleglum 2.0 20:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Rosguill: OK, more answers above. Thanks again. Puddleglum 2.0 20:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Rosguill Additional question answered. Puddleglum2.0 16:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Verifiability Please read WP:V and answer the questions below 15. Three independent, reliable sources say that a subject has 2 sons, but in reality he has 3 sons. Could we change the content from "2" sons to "3 sons"? and why? Answer: No, we couldn't, because there is no way to verify that the subject has three sons. We would do best to bring it up on the subject's article talk page. Y The other thing you can do is to look for more recent sources that confirm the 3 sons claim. signed, Rosguill talk 05:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC) @Rosguill: How does one go about finding Original Research? Puddleglum 2.0 03:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0: Category:Articles that may contain original research is a good place to look, as it lists all articles tagged with {{Original research}}. I would ask that for this task, pick an example that goes a bit further than just not having enough footnotes (i.e. an example that improperly synthesizes claims from sources). signed, Rosguill talk 04:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC) @Rosguill: Done Puddleglum 2.0 04:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0: graded, please see the follow up questions in the OR section. signed, Rosguill talk 05:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion

PART 2

We have looked at the requirements needed for a page to meet notability guidelines, content policies and the types of sources needed to merit a page in Wikipedia in Part 1 (Assignment 1, 2 & 3). In assignment 4, we look at what type of articles need to be filtered out from our system when reviewing a page. There are many criteria of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Here we discuss (1) General criteria (G1-G14), (2) Article criteria (A1-A11) and R2.

Please do the following

1. Please set up your CSD log by installing MYCSD so that I can review your CSD nominations. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
2. Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in your computer.
3. Download CV-revdel and after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

General criteria

1. Please review (G1-G14) at General and answer the following questions in your own words.

No	Criterion	Application	Mentor comments
1	G1	Deleting articles that only contain inexplicable nonsense.	Y
2	G2	Deleting test pages (i.e. obvious editing tests or Sandbox subpages)	Y
3	G3	Deleting articles that are only obvious vandalism and/or obvious hoaxes.	Y
4	G4	Deleting articles that were remade after being previously deleted.	Y This explicitly applies only to articles that have been previously deleted by a discussion, which almost invariably means an AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
5	G5	Deleting articles that are created in violation of a block by the blocked user.	Y
6	G6	deleting articles for maintenance reasons.	Y
7	G7	Deleting articles by request of the author.	Y Note that if any other editor has made significant contributions to the page G7 does not apply. signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
8	G8	Deleting articles that rely on other deleted articles	Y, you're not going to run into this one in NPP signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
9	G9	for WMF action.	Y, or this one signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
10	G10	Deleting articles that are only made to disparage and attack the subject.	Y
11	G11	Deleting articles that contain only pure advertising and promotion	Y
12	G12	Deleting articles that are a clear copyright infringment.	Y, note that if there's any part of the article that's not in violation of copyright, it's better to just remove the offending material and file for a revdel if appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
13	G13	Deleting abandoned drafts (that have been sitting in the draft queue for six months.	Y
14	G14	Deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages	Y, although note that the criteria for this are very strict. signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Ok, answers above. Did you want more explanation? I know my explanations are pretty bare bones, so I could expand if you want. Anyway, thanks! Puddleglum^2.0 03:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: graded, and added a new section. The general level of detail for these answers has been fine, although for some of them being slightly more precise is important. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Article criteria

1. Please review A1-A11, R2, and R3 criteria at WP:CSD#List of criteria and answer the following questions in your own words.

No	Criterion	Application	Mentor comments
1	A1	For articles with no context, or not enough to establish the subject of the article	Y, note that if even the title alone is something that could be googled successfully to find more information then A1 does not apply
2	A2	For foreign language articles that are on another WikiMedia Project	Y
3	A3	For empty articles with no content.	Y, note that some types of content do not disqualify an article from being deleted by A3
4	A4	A4 is no longer used as a CSD criteria.	Y
5	A5	For articles that have been copy-pasted from a different WikiMedia Project.	N, this is for articles that were written on enWiki and then had their content copied (with attribution) to another project
6	A6	A6 is no longer used as a CSD criteria.	Y
7	A7	For articles that do not establish importance and are about of animals, people, organizations, web stuff, and/or events.	Y, note that the specific criterion is a credible claim of significance (which need not be sourced, only plausible), and that schools do not qualify under this CSD category
8	A8	A8 is no longer used as a CSD criteria.	Y
9	A9	For articles that do not establish significance that are about musical recordings.	Y, specifically it's for non-significant musical recordings where none of the recording artists have an article on Wikipedia, otherwise we would just redirect the article to the recording artist
10	A10	For recently created articles that cover a subject that already has an article.	Y Note that if the article's title is a plausible search term, it should be converted to a redirect instead of deleting. Additionally, if there's any useful and novel content at the article then a merge should be performed.
11	A11	For articles about stuff that is obviously invented and a hoax.	N, the criterion specifically says that this does not apply to hoaxes. This is for articles along the lines of "Bob Schmo created the world's first solar-powered bread slicer}, written by User:BobSchmo and with citations to Bob Schmo's blog and nothing else. Hoax implies that the intent of the article is to misinform readers, and is covered by G3.
12	R2	For cross-namespace redirects.	Y, specifically for cross-namespace redirects from Mainspace to any namespace other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal:
13	R3	For recently created redirects that cover an implausible typo.	Y

Scenarios

For scenarios 1-3, 9, 11-13, and 15-19 all names are made-up and should not be looked at outside of the training environment. These can be broken up into multiple practice sets so as to not overwhelm the trainee.

Scenario 1

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:

John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.

I would use G10, although G3 would also apply.

Y Correct, although A7 also applies. Note that when filing CSDs with Twinkle, you can use the "custom rationale" option to enter multiple different CSD categories if more than one applies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text

'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.

I would use G11.

Y

Scenario 3

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text:

'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 500 subscribers on YouTube.

I believe A7 would apply.

Y, although if reliable sources are supplied A7 will likely be declined. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Answers above. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Fix ping, sorry: @Rosguill: Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 18:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0:, graded and added more questions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

More scenarios

Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:

Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.

I would redirect this to The Nice. A7 and A1 are probably the closest criteria, but they don't quite apply.

Y good catch, although I think we're a ways away from A1 applying. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 5

A user creates an article Marks v. Shoup with the following content:

Under the law of Oregon which was in force in Alaska when the seizure and levy of the plaintiff's goods were made by the defendant as marshal of Alaska under a writ of attachment, that officer could not, by virtue of his writ, lawfully take the property from the possession of a third person, in whose possession he found it.

I believe A1 would apply here.

N, if you search for "Marks v. Shoup" online you can find relevant results, so A1 does not apply. This is actually text from a US district court case, and is thus 1) public domain and 2) likely notable. I would either mark the article as approved and tag for improvement, or nominate it for AfD if you don't think it has received enough coverage following a BEFORE search. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.

First I would put it through a translator. If it was copied, I would nominate it for G12, otherwise I would simply flag it for translation. (After also checking for G11, G10, and perhaps A2.)

Y, the general procedure described is correct, but G12 is the wrong CSD code for an article copied from another Wikimedia project. A2 is the most likely CSD code for this case, although if you do find that it was copied from a source with an incompatible copyright then G12 would apply. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.

I would wait a bit and if it remained empty nominate it for A3.

Y, although G7 would be equally appropriate here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 8

A user creates an article which is an identical copy of another article on Wikipedia.

Assuming the duplicate is on enWP, I would nominate it for A10.

Y, first check if the title could be a valid redirect. If not, then A10 is correct.

Scenario 9

A user with the name "WikiRockers" creates the following article

Phabricators are Fabulous is the debut single of an exciting new group called the WikiRockers. 

Clear G11 nomination.

Y, although A9 could also apply _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 10

A user creates an article and 5 minutes after it was created the article only has a single category with no other text.

I would wait and watch the article for a bit longer, and if it remained like that I would nominate it for A3.

Y

@Rosguill: Thanks; see more answers above.

@Puddleglum2.0:, graded, more questions below. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten - will try to answer tonight or tomorrow morning. I'm sorry I'm not the most active editor - RL keeps me busy. =) Thanks, Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 01:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Even more scenarios

Scenario 11

A user creates an article Larry Footy with the following wikisource (in other words it properly displays in the article):

{{Infobox football biography
 |name = Larry Footy
 |birth_place = [[Leeds, England]]
 |currentclub = [[Oxford City]]}}

A1.

N, claiming that the subject plays for Oxford City is enough to research the subject, which takes us out of A1 territory. G3 could apply, since you can quickly verify that no player by this name is listed on Oxford City's rosters, or failing that BLPPROD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 12

A user with the name Gamerfan123 creates the following article:

GamerCon is an annual event held in the garage of Shelly Sony. Last year 10 people attended - a record. This year's event will be held October 19-21.

A7.

Y

Scenario 13

A user creates the article HomeTown Pizza with the following content:

HomeTown Pizza is a local pizza maker. It has been open since 2004. Its most popular topping, according to the local paper, is pepperoni.[1]

References
1.^ localalnewspaper.com/hometownpizza/profile.html

A7.

Y, and you should follow up by reporting them to WP:UAA since their username implies shared use (as well as a COI). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 14

A user Someguy54321 makes the following article and 3 days later gets community banned for repeatedly operating a bot without approval.

Cecilia Rich is a state senator in the New Hampshire House of representatives.

It's not created in violation of the block, so I would mark it as a stub I think.

Y, you're right that G5 doesn't apply, but as an unsourced BLP article, you need to either find a source or mark it for BLPPROD. Given that the article makes a claim that meets WP:NPOLITICIAN, putting in a few minutes effort to find a source is probably the way to go. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 15

User:PhilHDoct creates the following article at Solar Panel 2.0:

Phil Doct has created a new solar panel which will increase energy output from existing solar panels by 30%. He was granted a patent on this invention on May 15.

A11.

N, while this is clearly a COI, a 30% increase in solar panel output is both significant and credible claim so A11 doesn't apply. Assuming that no sources have been provided, you should quickly see if anything pops up when searching online and Google Scholar, and if not then nominate for PROD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 16

A user converts a redirect Tayo into an article with the following wikisource. How, if at all, would it be different if a user made this as a new article?

[[Tayo the Little Bus|<span style="color: #0088ff;">You: Kill Tayo!!!!!!!!!!! </span><span style="color: #33ff0a;">Rogi: Nooooo You!!!!!!! </span><span style="color: #00a2ff;">Tayo:Help!!!!! Blood, this is my sad</span><span style="color: #ff2600;"> Gani: Call Emergency!!!!!
<span style="color: #0088ff;">You: Kill Gani!!!!!!</span><span style="color: #eeff00;"> Lani:321! Bomb you!!!</span>]]

If the first scenario I would nominate it for G2, but with the second scenario I believe it could be G3.

Y, in the first scenario you should just restore the redirect. G3 could be appropriate for the second scenario. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 17

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is secondary sourcing present for all statements.

Acme Inc is a Mumbai based widget company with 1200 employees and 10 million (US) in revenues. They were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote. Their first product was a one inch widget. Acme have won several awards for quality.

This would be OK I think.

Y, depending on the depth of coverage, it may still not meet GNG (esp since WP:NCORP encourages us to be quite strict with businesses), but we've left CSD and even PROD territory. You should also warn the initial editor about COI if they haven't already declared one. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 18

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is sourcing to the company's website present for all statements.

Acme Inc is the premier award-winning Indian widget company. Located in beautiful Mumbai, the company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues. In a flash of inspiration brilliant inventor Wiley C Oyote started the company in 2015. Their first product revolutionized widgets and amazingly each new product has been even more impressive. Acme has shown themselves to be the best in the business and only has the greatest things ahead of them. "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.

G11.

Y

Scenario 19

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article.

Acme Inc is an award-winning[1][2] Indian widget company. The company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees[3] who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues.[2] We were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote.[3] Our first product was a one inch widget.[4] Acme has become an important widget manufacturer.[3] "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.[4]

==References==
1.^ Indian company customer reviews. http://www.indiancustomers.com/Acme
2.^ Reporter, A. "Acme Wins Award". Mumbai Newspaper. October 20, 2018.
3.^ "Why Acme" acmewidgets.com
4.^ "Acme brings Widget to Market" www.pressreleases.com

G11 still I believe.

Y

@Rosguill: OK, answers above, sorry for the wait. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 16:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0:, graded, added more below. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirect scenarios

Scenario 20

An editor creates a redirect titled "Sittin Chapel" pointing at Sistine Chapel

R3.

Y

Scenario 21

An editor creates a redirect titled "Bornio" pointing at Borneo

I would keep; this seems like a possible typo.

Y

Scenario 22

An editor creates a redirect titled "St Augustine," pointing at St. Augustine

Keep.

Y

Scenario 23

An editor creates a redirect titled "New Joyzee" pointing at New Jersey

R3 -- spelling out of phonetic pronunciation, I don't think anyone would spell it tha

N while you're entitled to think that this isn't a valid redirect, there's a plausible enough explanation for its creation such that it should be taken to RfD rather than marked for speedy deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 24

An editor creates a redirect titled "Caltary" tagged with {{R from misspelling}} pointing at Calvary Keep.

N, this should be taken to RfD because it is a spelling mistake that is also likely to refer to Calgary as Calvary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, graded, now time for some practice with real articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Live G11 practice

3. Please review WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD 11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Please provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i:

DroidIn

Y

Answer ii:

RedTacton

Y

Answer iii:

Dominick P. Purpura

N, I see that this one was actually just moved out of mainspace by a WikiEd facilitator and now lives at User:Miralex0209/sandbox1. That aside, I don't think this was a case of G11 and would have declined it had I come across it. While the article does need significant copy editing for neutrality, I wouldn't say that it has nothing usable, or that it is clearly and unambiguously promotional spam. Various claims made in the article are also strong indications of notability, provided that they're backed up by reliable sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv:

Brea Olinda Unified School -- admin initially deleted but restored at creators request.

Y

Answer v:

Mapúa University School of IT

N, I think that some of the content in the lead would have been salvageable, but there's a secondary issue which is that redirecting to the parent organization is a preferable alternative to deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: answers above. --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 23:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: graded above, on to the next section. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Please read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and answer the questions below.

3. When do we nominate a page for WP:G12 and when do we WP:REVDEL the COPYVIO text?

Answer: G12 is for pages with unambiguous copyvio problems, when the article history is so corrupt it is not possible to restore a previous version with proper attributions. Revdel can be used to hide revisions that bring in copyvios; it Can only be used if it does not harm the edits of non-infringing editors.

Y

4. What constitutes copyright infringement/violation.

Answer: Anything that is not freely redistributable under the CC-BY-SA license and the GNU Documentation License. Close paraphrasing and copy pasting text also counts as a copyvio.

Y, the above definition doesn't cover public domain material, which can also be reused without violating copyright _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

5. What are some examples of cases where it is ok to have exact copies of text from sources in an article? Please provide three examples.

Answer i: If the text is a very short quote.

Answer ii: If the text is freely licensed and available for redistribution.

Answer iii: If the text is licensed under a compatibile licensing scheme.

Y these answers are correct, but iii is a subset of ii. One example that's missing here is content that cannot be rephrased in any way other than how it's presented at a copyright protected source, such as bibliographies of references to academic papers. Articles about academics will regularly cause the copyvio tool to go off due to the inclusion of such references, so you need to be careful when evaluating a copyvio report to make sure that it's actually a violation (in addition to checking if the content is released under a compatible license or itself copied from Wikipedia). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

6. Why do copyright violations need to be removed from Wikipedia and who determines when a violation is lawfully taking place?

Answer: Copyvios must be removed for a couple reasons: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, so cannot contain non-free material, and it is against the official law of most every country to violate copyright laws. It's up to the admins to determine and take care of copyroght violations, but normal editors can report it.

Puddleglum2.0, Follow up question: what about content that is not free-use, but is instead released as "free for Wikipedia use" or "free for non-commercial use"? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Yes, you could use that, but I believe it just be mentioned in the source. --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 03:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0 N. While such use would be legal, Wikipedia's mission of providing free content means that we can't include non-free text, because the idea is that readers should be free to copy and reuse content from Wikipedia without fear of breaking the law. The relevant guideline is WP:Non-free content, which also details when non-free content can be used (largely just exceptions provided by US law). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks Rosguill. I think I missed the difference between legal and allowed. Thanks, --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 04:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: most answers above, do you want real examples of those cases of hypothetical? Thanks, --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 01:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0 hypothetical is fine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: answers above. --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 01:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations live practice

7. Please provide 5 successful CSD 12 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. You can use Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool to check if an article is in violation of COPYVIO.

Answer i:

• Carolyn Clancy Y

Answer ii:

• Wentworth Park, Nova Scotia

  N, while there was a copyright violation, there was enough original prose to make deletion of the article unnecessary. The proper procedure in this case is to remove the offending content and file for WP:REVDEL. You can look at the revision history of the article, where Moneytrees has carried out the appropriate redactions step by step. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii:

• GNSS Service Centre

  N, this is a weird one. The original page that tripped the copyvio detector, [10], appears to have been released as "free for non-commercial use". While such content is still not welcome on wikipedia, per WP:Non-free content, it isn't grounds for speedy deletion. Rather, you should tag it with {{copypaste}} and raise the issue on the talk page. The initial editor also chimed in on the talk page saying that they translated this from the German Wikipedia article. This seems plausible, as the text is not a perfect match of the original. In this case, a translation is sufficient permutation of the content to avoid copyright issues, so the final result is no violation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv:

• Lorus (watch)

  N, similar to Wentworth Park, there was non-infringing text in this article as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer v:

• Lia Epperson

  N, this was a false positive, essentially none of the prose content appears to be a copyright violation. Articles about academics and lawyers often generate false positives because of their bibliographies, and the rather long names of the institutions that they often work at. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: answers above -- I apologize for the wait; for some reason Earwig rarely works when I log on; its really slow and I've had less time recently. Anyway, thanks as always! --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 19:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, graded. You had some trouble here, so please try tagging three more articles that you think are valid CSD cases. Copyright violation policy is really tricky, and for what it's worth I had to consult policy pages half a dozen times while grading this section. As far as the copyvios tool, it went down entirely recently, then was unreliable, and has only been back to full capacity recently. If the copyvio tool isn't working, you can try to search for copyvio manually by copying suspicious snippets of text into Google search, but usually when the tool is down I take that as motivation to go do something other than NPP (unless it goes down for more than several days). A final thing to watch out for when using the tool is that while it may register violations across multiple pages, it will only highlight matches against one page at a time. For articles that appear to have non-offending text, you're going to want to refresh the copyvio page after you remove each chunk to verify that the rest is kosher. Also, there's a known issue that the tool doesn't run properly on articles that have & in the title. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission

  I'm actually not sure that I agree with this one. As it was copied from [11], a subsite of the Nebraska government site. Its https://www.nebraska.gov/policies/ policies state that the website's content is free for noncommercial use. That's not ideal, but it doesn't need to be deleted. Rather, it should be flagged with {{non free}}. That having been said, with half the article having been copied from the subject's website and the other half comprising a totally unsourced attack against the subject, I don't think we've suffered a great loss in this article's deletion and am not going to intervene to retrieve it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• It was recreated - it looks like the exact same content, should it be deleted again? (Though not under copyvio, that makes sense.) -- puddleglum^2.0 23:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Josias Welsh

  Turns out, I got that one wrong too, per User_talk:Rosguill#Speedy_deletion_of_copyrighted_page_Josias_Welsh. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think the declaration was malformatted or something - at least for me, the notice didn't pop up in Earwig. Can't see the deleted version though, so can't be too sure. Thanks for restoring! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 23:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Can't say I remember ever seeing a notification about public domain or compatible licenses come up in Earwig's detector. In this case, the disclosure appears to have been included in some of the actual footnotes, which is appropriate (although it's better form to also mention it in the edit summary). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what I have for now - New pages feed is slow. =) -- puddleglum^2.0 01:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hutchins Center for African and African American Research

@Rosguill: OK, there's the third. -- puddleglum^2.0 23:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, could you clarify why you thought G12 was appropriate for this article, rather than just redacting the offending content? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I really didn't (and don't) think that that article was much of anything after the copyvio had been removed - it seemed pretty bare bones to me. I'm really sorry, copyright policy for some reason is really not clicking with me. I wonder if they're is something I'm missing, I'm going to go through the copyvio pages again and just review. Thanks for putting up with me. Cheers. -- puddleglum^2.0 22:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, no need to apologize, if this stuff was easy to pick up there wouldn't be a need to teach it. As for the article itself, my general standard for copyvio removal vs. deletion is that if an article is about a subject that stands a chance of being notable and is not totally incomprehensible or blatantly promotional after you remove the copyvio content, it's better to keep the article and ask for a revdel rather than tagging it for deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks - that's a good standard to keep in mind. I've gone through the policies you've linked at the beginning - how do we want to progress from here? Thanks again, -- puddleglum^2.0 23:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, at this point I think that we can move on, although I think we should revisit copyvio before completing the course. For now, here's the next two sections. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Draftify

Please read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT. Please explain when to a new page (NPP article) can be nominated for CSD R2 and what should be considered when doing such move?

Answer:

---

Live article and redirect CSD practice

Please read and A1-A11 and R2 at WP:CSD and and provide 5 successful "Article CSD" articles (with at least two of them are CSD A7) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Please provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i CSD A7:

Answer ii CSD A7:

Answer iii CSD R2:

Answer iv CSD R2:

Answer v any criteria: