User:Rosguill/Angus1986 NPPSCHOOL

Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! 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).

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Notability as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

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

PART 1

Questions

Question 1

In your own words, how is notability defined on Wikipedia?

Notability is defined as the method wherein the editors can decide whether an article created on Wikipedia is noteworthy or not. Angus1986 (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

And what does notability correspond to in off-Wikipedia terms? In other words, if something is considered notable on Wikipedia, what does that say about its real world existence? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It means that the subject is widely known, and there are people trying to look up the subject on search engines. Also, the subject doesn't have to be universally known, if the subject has importance locally too, it is notable. Angus1986 (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

N, notability on Wikipedia is purely a function of how much has been written about the subject in reliable sources. A subject being well known does not establish notability in the absence of reliable, independent sources writing about them (e.g. a news anchor may be well known despite having very little written about them). While SNGs do sometimes trade on criteria that are equivalent to "well known", in theory SNG are written such that any subject meeting the SNG will have garnered enough coverage to meet GNG. Ultimately, these guidelines exist to prevent us from publishing original research about subjects. How much people want to read an article on this subject should not factor into our decision; if we systematically published articles that fell short of GNG because readers wanted to read them, we would actually be doing our readers a disservice because we would not be able to verify that we weren't writing skewed portrayals or otherwise publishing misinformation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, so it is not about how viral a subject has been but rather how many "reliable" sources have cited/mentioned the subject. So, in that case a little known mathematician who contributed a lot in his/her field and had won a Nobel prize should have a Wikipedia page, while some famous mathematician in a local town of Sweden who is pretty smart and is well known locally but has no publications or never won any distinguished price, shouldn't have a Wikipedia page, am I correct? Angus1986 (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, I think you've got the spirit of it, although this example gets a bit muddled because the subject specific notability guideline for academics, WP:NACADEMIC, is one of the looser ones that we have. I think that a more concrete example would be that a YouTube channel of "chill beat remixes" with 1 million followers may not meet notability guidelines if no reliable sources have written articles about them, whereas a channel with half as many followers but which has been repeatedly covered in NPR, The New Yorker, and The Guardian is notable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Alright, so what matters is how much the subject is covered in reliable/reputable sources as per Reliable sources on Wikipedia. I will have to review the news sources(which are constantly updated on Wikipedia whether they report genuine articles or fake articles or run by the government). If the chill beat remixes as you mentioned is covered many times in non-reputable or blacklisted sources then that wouldn't be considered, and only the ones which are covered in legit sources should be taken into consideration while accessing the notability of the subject. correct? Angus1986 (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Unreliable sources never count directly towards notability, although they may sometimes serve as an indication that additional reliable coverage exists. For example, a K-pop group getting tons of coverage in unreliable English blogs may be a sign that additional better coverage is available in Korean. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! :) Angus1986 (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2020 (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?

I don't believe a step by step instructions on how to "Change a car tire" is considered a noteworthy, it is a narrowed down article which are not independently sourced or widely covered by major reliable news media. It fails to meet WP:GNG. The same reason why a step by step instructions for how to cook "insert a generic food" is not noteworthy as well. Angus1986 (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Y right answer, wrong justification. Changing a car tire probably has received enough coverage in reliable sources (which are not necessarily news media) to technically meet GNG. Step-by-step instructions fall afoul of WP:NOTMANUAL. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there are certain types of topics that we are not interested in covering, even if you could construe them as meeting a notability guideline. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you I need to practice and learn more of WP: GNG. Angus1986 (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2020 (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?

A general notability guideline applies to all the articles(except the subject-specific lists) that are created by the editors on Wikipedia, while the subject-specific notability guidelines only apply to the list such as Academics, Astronomica Objects, Numbers, etc. We first look at the subject topic whether it is in the list of subject-specific topics, if yes then we follow the subject-specific notability guidelines, if not, then we proceed with GNG. Angus1986 (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

N not quite: GNG actually applies to all articles. SNGs are shortcut rules by which we can establish that it is highly likely that GNG is met. Simply meeting an SNG does not automatically mean that an article is notable, although in most cases it does mean that the article should not be nominated for deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, so all the article's by default must meet the GNG while specific subject categories have a shortcut wherein if they meet SNG then they can have a Wikipedia article of their own. Right? Angus1986 (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Y _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 23 February 2020 (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

• people Y
• books Y
• sports Y
• academics Y
• astronomical objects Y
• numbers Y this one includes some restrictions on coverage, making it more of a category 3 SNG in my opinion
• geographical features. Y

Primarily additional considerations that define or restrict the nature of coverage or sources required

• organizations & companies Y
• events Y

Even mix of the previous two categories

• web Y I would place this in category 1, as it specifies that notability can be established by way of an award, and the other criterion just restates GNG. For what it's worth, this is not a terribly useful SNG. In my opinion, the most important information in the guideline is the instructions of alternatives to deletion to consider if notability is not established
• music Y, although it's mostly a category 1 SNG, the specifics listed under MUSICBIO are important additional restrictions on the notability of musicians affiliated with bands that come up quite a bit
• films. Y

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 when evaluating an article as a new page reviewer?

- As a NPP, I would accept the article if SNGs are met(with coverage of the article in reputable and reliable resources), but if there is no coverage in any of the reliable/reputable sources then I wouldn't accept the article even if the SNGs are met. Angus1986 (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Y, I think you're on the right track here, but I wouldn't treat this as a pure binary based on the presence or absence of a single reliable source. I think that a good perspective to adopt is that passing an SNG is an extremely strong indicator of notability. However, that needs to be evaluated alongside other indicators of notability. For example, consider a single released in 2008 that charted on a relatively obscure music chart, such as New Age Digital Song Sales. The only available coverage is the Billboard chart listing. The 21st century release suggests that if coverage exists, it should be online (making the absence of online coverage more damning than for a single released pre-internet), and the obscurity of the genre suggests that it may not have received additional coverage. Taken together, you should consider ignoring the SNG in this situation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 1 September 2020 (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.

Scenario 1

An editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2020 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why?

- It doesn't meet SNG because there are no sources mentioned, as mentioned earlier in the previous questions asked by you, for an article to be considered notable there must be reliable sources. Angus1986 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Follow up question: what should we do in this situation? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Find more reliable sources then add it to the article and keep the article. Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 06:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 2

A New York city based 2020 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.

- Just this scenario doesn't meet SNG! If this covered in reliable sources like in Wall Street Journal or New York Post, along with more publications about this startup(not just limited to this particular scenario) then it would meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Angus1986 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Y, it's also worth noting that funding news is generally considered routine coverage for businesses. By itself, it's not going to count towards meeting notability guidelines, even if published in a reliable source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 3

Movsar Evloev who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 12-0.

- Yes, he meets the SNG for Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability(this was a sub-topic in Wikipedia:Notability (sports); because he fought 3 professional fights for UFC and holds an excellent record of 12-0. Angus1986 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Y, although the fact that he won those contests is irrelevant to the SNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 4

An upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, which will be in production in August 2020 and to be released on March 2021 in the cinemas.

- No, doesn't meet SNG because according to Wikipedia:Planned films#Coverage of planned films just being in pre-production doesn't make it notable enough, it must first enter principal photography until then it is just an "idea" or a "concept". Angus1986 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Y

Scenario 5

A political candidate, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2020 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspaper coverage of his candidacy.

- No, doesn't meet SNG because as per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges just running for candidacy doesn't automatically make the person notable, however if the political candidate meets GNG then he would be considered notable. Angus1986 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Y

Scenario 6

A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify.

- No, doesn't meet SNG as the singer fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) Angus1986 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Y

---

For scenarios 7-11 specify which SNGs would establish the subject's notability.

Scenario 7

Carlos Alós-Ferrer

WP:NPROF Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 06:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Y

Scenario 8

Alistair Overeem

WP:NMMA Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 06:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Y

Scenario 9

Jennifer Lopez

WP:NACTOR Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 06:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Y, although in J-Lo's case, calling it WP:ENT (same guideline, different shortcut) is probably more appropriate, as she would meet the criteria as a singer even if her acting career hadn't happened. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 10

Three Mile Island accident

WP:EVENT Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 06:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Y

Scenario 11

Persepolis

WP:NGEO Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 06:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Y

Alright Angus1986, you're flying through these. Next up is the section on analyzing sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Background for trainees

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.

You can contact WP:RX if you could not find the sources yourself either on the web due to paywalls or offline-only sources.

---

Exercises

1.

Topic	Definition	5 Examples	Comment by Trainer
Reliable source	It is a source which has been there in existence for a long time, and written by people who are regarded as well known journalists in their own forte. Like the Guardian newspaper is well known for a long time, and known to produce legit, non-paid, and non-biased news articles. So, to sum it up, this type of source follows a strict publication process(to ensure credibility) and written by a well know journalist/author.	(example)The Guardian newspaper The Daily Telegraph newspaper USA Today newspaper The Australian newspaper The Times newspaper The New York Times newspaper	Y, while having a long history can help establish a publication's reliability, it's not a guarantee of reliability (for instance, the Daily Mail is also over 100 years old but is not reliable). On the other hand, relatively new sources can be reliable provided that they have clearly established professional editorial staff and policies. Reliability is also situational: more sensitive or controversial subjects require stronger sources. For instance, on an article about a rock album, simply having a professional editorial board will usually be sufficient for establishing notability. For an article about an ethnicity or a recent military conflict, even well-known newspapers may not be considered reliable enough. Bear in mind that journalistic sources are not the only kind of reliable source, and peer-reviewed academic publications are generally considered to be more reliable than journalism. Our strictest reliability policies are for medical-related claims (WP:MEDRS), where nothing less than secondary peer-reviewed sources qualify.
User generated sources	Self-published	Reddit Twitter YouTube Facebook LinkedIn	Y, although note that blogs or vanity press books by authors without relevant, verifiable expertise on the subject matter fall in this category as well, it's not just social networks.
Non Independent source	Source which doesn't show attribution and shows Conflict of interest	Press release Fox News reporting on Donald Trump? Alicia Garza writing about Black Lives Matter in a blog Pfizer writing that Zoloft is the best drug for treating depression in their blog. Autobiography	Y, most of these examples are on point, but Fox News would probably still be considered to be independent from Trump (although they are now considered unreliable when it comes to political reporting, see WP:RSP). Independence also needs to factor in the nature of the content, not just the publisher. For instance, in a Q&A interview, any information cited to the interviewee is non-independent, even if the publication is otherwise reliable and independent. Information provided about the interviewee in the publication's voice, however, would be considered independent.

2.

Type	Definition	Examples (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary)	Comment by Trainer
Primary	Written by people who are directly involved	(example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results Albert Einstein reporting Photoelectric effect Stephen Hawking reporting the theory of Black hole A tweet from Donald Trump http://government.ru/en/news/ writing on Vladimir Putin Mein Kampf Bible Information of NASA on it's official .gov website Someone's video blog on YouTube Remarks made by the President Donald Trump while addressing the nation Witnesses who were present when they found the body of Jeffrey Epstein Press Releases of any company or organization Data from Hubble Space Telescope Covid-19 data on World Health Organization website List of rich countries posted by World Bank Autophagy in yeast demonstrated with proteinase-deficient mutants and conditions for its induction by Yoshinori Ohsumi	Y this is mostly correct, but your definition should be widened to include the reporting of data without further analysis, even if it's by published by an independent source. The distinction between a primary and secondary source is that a secondary source brings additional independent analysis. Primary sources may include analysis that is not independent, or they may lack analysis despite being independent. Additionally, the primary/secondary/tertiary character of a source is always assessed with respect to specific claims, and many sources will contain a mix of primary and secondary coverage. I'm fairly certain that Mein Kampf, for instance, contains analysis (albeit bad analysis), and would not be primary with respect to certain claims (although it would be unreliable). It would be primary with respect to claims about Nazi ideology or Adolf Hitler's life (although likely still largely unreliable).
Secondary	Not directly related to the topic, derived from the primary sources.	(example) newspaper Rotten Tomatoes IMDb A youtube channel like "Two minute papers" New Scientist ESPN	N, Rotten Tomatoes is actually an example of a tertiary source, as it is a database that collects information from secondary source. IMDb is crowdsourced and thus is a mix of different types of information, but at its best it's also a tertiary source (and its database format is typical of tertiary sources). As I stated in the previous section, questions about the nature of a source always need to be evaluated in the context of a specific claim. ESPN and New Scientist do primarily publish secondary coverage, but box scores from ESPN would be primary, and interviews in either publication would likely include a mix of primary and secondary information.
Tertiary	Derived from the secondary source, also can be labelled as a compilation for secondary or primary sources	(example) encyclopedias Ripley's Believe It or Not! Atlas Bill Nye the Science Guy Guinness World Records A book on Pharmacology for the students studying the subject(compiling all the subject matter and various experiments i.e. primary and secondary sources)	Y I think you get the general gist, but the Guinness Book of World records is often a primary source, as they establish and confirm records themselves. Ripley's Believe It or Not is not reliable, and includes fabricated information, although I guess you could argue that it presents itself as a tertiary source.

Finished! @Rosguill :) Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 11:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, graded, more questions below. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Subject	Primary	Secondary	Tertiary	Comment by Trainer
Example: Art	Example:Sculpture	Example:Article critiquing the sculpture	Example:Encyclopedic article on the sculptor
History	Anne Frank's diary	Article critiquing Anne Frank's diary	History textbooks (with a chapter dedicated to Anne Frank's diary)
Science	Albert Einstein's paper on General theory of relativity	Article of other physicists critiquing Einstein's GTR	Physics textbooks (with a chapter on GTR)
Athletes	Cristiano Ronaldo's official website	An article on Cristiano Ronaldo critiquing his performance	Encyclopaedic article on Cristiano Ronaldo

@Rosguill Finished! AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 08:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Y, your answers aren't wrong, but you kinda phoned it in here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry @Rosguill, I will put in more effort in the next exercises. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 18:08, 13 September 2020 (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's his own personal website	Reliable	It shows his works, so it should be significant	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302053743/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm	Newspaper	Seems reliable	It talks about his works	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	Looks like a biography	It site the sources	It describe him in complete detail so it seems significant	✔ 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 I am unable to edit this table, could you guide me on how to edit this? :) AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 08:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

AngusMEOW, just follow the format of the first filled-out example: mark ind (independence) rel (reliable?) and sig (significant coverage) with either a y or an n, and put your justification next to the relevant _just parameter. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Y correct _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 10 May 2021 (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/	IMDB is not an independent source	Anyone can edit or create pages	404 Error, looks like the IMDB page is deleted	✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales	Unsure what this link is?	Looks reliable	No mention of the subject anywhere	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125	Self created thus not independent	User created thus not reliable	It says the profile is not available!	✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/	It is not connected to the subject so must be independent	User created thus not reliable	Doesn't talk much about him at all	✘ 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

Y

@Rosguill I finished, but I am unsure what happened to the second table? I might have mistyped something in the code, could you help? Thank you! QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 20:41, 10 May 2021 (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	Doesn't have a connection with the subject, so independent	I have checked the reliability of Daily Mail online, even though it is quite popular doesn't seem reliable	Yes, it covers significant information about the subject	✘ No
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108	He is the part of All Blacks team, so it is not independent	Not reliable	Doesn't seem to cover much	✘ No
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308	Doesn't have connection with the subject, so independent	Reliable	Just talks 2-3 sentences about the subject	✘ No
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html	Doesn't have connection with the subject, so independent	Reliable	Covers significantly about the subject	✔ 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

Y, mostly correct, but the content in the NZ Herald article that is actually about the subject is from an interview with his teammate, so that's not really independent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

---

7

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/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch	Doesn't have connection with the subject, so independent	Reliable	It just shows the footage of him being sworn into the office, no significant coverage(like a news report or an article)	✘ No
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893	Doesn't have connection with the subject, so independent	Reliable	Significant coverage about the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012	Doesn't have connection with the subject, so independent	Unsure	No significant coverage	✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005	Independent	Reliable	Significant coverage	✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html	Even though PBS itself isn't connected with the subject, the way the interview is written kinda looks biased towards the subject	Reliable	Covers the subject in detail	✘ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html	Independent, no connection with the subject	Reliable	Significant coverage	✔ 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 Finished! QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 07:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Y

Questions

Question 8

Now that we've covered sources, 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)

1. Frank Lloyd Wright Y Because most of the sources meets GNG
2. Jordan Lennon N Because all sources fails GNG
3. Sonny Bill Williams Y Meets SNG(especially WP:ATHLETE)
4. David Petraeus Y All the sources meets GNG

QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 18:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Y, your answers are correct but I'm a little puzzled by your framing. Sources meet GNG collectively, not individually. So, it's not accurate to say that "most" or "all" sources meet GNG; rather the assessment to make is whether the sources contribute to meeting GNG, and whether altogether GNG is met. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Question 9

Please explain in your own words why claims need to be verified?

Anyone can claim anything, like for example in this edit [[1]] at Aliza Ayaz, a paid/COI editor claimed she is worth 390 million British pounds, without verifying this, people will be deceived that she is actually worth that much. Since Wikipedia ranks the highest in almost all search engines, it is very important to make sure all the claims are verified, in order to present only verified content WP:VNT to the public. QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 18:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Y

Question 10

Could we cite Wikipedia as a source? and why?

No, because Wikipedia itself is a collection of reliable sources, moreover content created by users on Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source. QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 18:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Y, the second part of the answer is correct, the first part less so. Another reason why we can't cite Wikipedia is because this would quickly result in circular sourcing: Article A cites Article B which cites Article A again, interfering with our ability to ensure that information is properly verifiable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Question 11

Give an example of a source that is reliable but not independent of a subject, and explain why.

[[2]] This is the profile of a Nobel Laureate biologist, David Baltimore, who is currently the president of CalTech, so this source is considered reliable but not independent of the subject because he is associated with the CalTech. QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 18:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Y

Question 12

Give an example of a source that is independent but not reliable and explain why.

Forbes contributor articles are independent because they are not connected with the subject however they are not reliable because they are user-generated content and aren't scrutinized, also the same goes for all guest blog posts and other user-generated content as perWP:USERG. QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 18:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Y

Question 13

Describe the steps you should take when assessing whether an unfamiliar source is reliable.

I will look into WP:DEPRECATED and make sure the source isn't listed there, and then I will look into WP:SOURCEGUIDE to make sure whether it is considered reliable or not, if it is missing from there then I will assess that the article to check whether it is :

i) Questionable ii) Self-published iii) Sponsored iv) User-generated content (example: IMDB, Forbes contributor articles) If it is in any of the aforementioned 4 categories then I wouldn't consider it as a reliable source (with an exception for the criterias as described in WP:SELFSOURCE)

Y

@Rosguill Finished! QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 18:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating sources in the wild

Without consulting any existing Wikipedia consensuses, such as those listed at WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG or WP:RSN, assess whether the following sources are reliable. You may refer to Wikipedia articles for the publications if they exist. Be specific as to how and why you came to your conclusions. Sources are often reliable for some content and unreliable for other content: identify what sorts of articles may have reliable and unreliable coverage from a given source, and consider using examples from their website to illustrate your points. Feel free to offer topic-scoped assessments such as "likely reliable for claims related to pop culture" or "reliable for non-political subject matter". For sources in languages that you can't read, please use Google Translate to evaluate the source to the best of your ability.

14 The Moscow Times

Reliable, because their articles seem to be written from a neutral point of view and they always cite their sources with whatever claims they are making in the article, for example here -> [[3]], in the line "Ross confirmed to the state-run TASS news agency that she has been declared persona non grata.", the word 'confirmed' was hyperlinked to its source over here -> [[4]]. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y, these are all good signs, but a more definitive test of reliability is whether there is WP:USEBYOTHERS. In this case, an internet and Google Scholar search turns up a fair amount of use by RS, so an assessment of reliable is correct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

15 USA Today

Reliable, I am aware of USA Today, it is my go-to site for my news appetite(not showing my personal bias but justifying because they are credible), again they maintain a neutral point of view and cite their sources without making extraordinary claims, also they are not written by any contributors(so it is not user-generated). Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y, incidentally they're also one of my preferred sources for seeing what mainstream America is thinking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

16 The Hindu

Reliable, again most of the articles seem to follow well-cited and neutrally written articles with an editorial overview, with an exception of few sections, like for example this one [[5]], it looks promotional. But all news pieces look reliable. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y

17 Anadolu Agency

Unreliable, all the articles are very biased towards the Muslim/Islamic nations, as their story on the recent conflict between Israel-Palestine only shows the attack from Israel, but doesn't talk about Palestine's attacks on Israel, you can verify the same over here -> [[6]] and [[7]]. Also shows a clear conflict of interest towards the Turkish government(like all positive content written for them), looks like the site is run to glorify Turkish government and Islam through their articles. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y, I wouldn't put much stock in judging a source by their I/P coverage (unless you're specifically assessing suitability for I/P claims), but Anadolu Agency is indeed a state propaganda arm of Turkey, and should not be considered reliable for anything other than the Turkish government's official view on things. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

18 Popular Mechanics

Reliable, all informative material without sponsoring a brand or showing COI. The sources are well-cited, a good example is this article [[8]]. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y

19 South China Morning Post

Reliable, upon checking their "Policies and Standard" page -> [[9]], and verifying the same by going through articles, they seem very reliable. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y

20 Seventeen

Looks like a celebrity gossip website with some nice pieces(which cover sources and written neutrally), like this one [[10]], so somewhat reliable depending on the news piece, if it is taken from gossip or fashion section I would say unreliable. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y, your assessment is reasonable, but more than the section of the site I think the nature of the claim to be cited is going to be the decisive factor here. Seventeen's fashion section is perfectly appropriate if you want to cite a claim related to fashion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

21 Egypt Today

Reliable, all the articles are written neutrally, without any bias. Well cited sources and all written by Egypt Today staff. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y, I'm not impressed by their lack of a masthead on their About Us page, but there's some degree of USEBYOTHERS so it may be reliable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

22 Xconomy

Unreliable, majority of their pieces like for example these ones -> [[11]] [[12]] are written in a very promotional manner, though they cite the sources and it's written by the staff, they fail NPOV and seem very promotional towards the company(very likely PAID promotion). Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y, also no USEBYOTHERS that I could find outside of PR mills

23 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Reliable, the site was in German so I had to use Google Translate, most of their pieces look like they have been written neutrally, fact-checked, and well cited. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y, Die FAZ is one of the most highly regarded conservative papers in Germany. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

24 Blesk

Unreliable, some of the headlines are on a picture(which cannot be translated into English), but the ones which got translated to English seem unreliable, the titles are very over exaggerating, not well written, occasional neutral pieces but many promotional pieces, I wouldn't consider to be reliable. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y

25 La Jornada

Reliable, seems very reliable, I have skimmed through some articles and read one, this one -> [[13]], meets are guidelines to be considered as a reliable source. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y, one of Mexico's leading newspapers _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

26 The Forward

Unsure, the way their logo says "News that matters for American Jews" makes me feel like their articles would have a bias towards jews. But their articles seem reliable, so I am unsure on this one. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y there's a good amount of USEBYOTHERS, so it's reliable, although their minority-demographic focus may mean that it may not be DUE in various cases. I would avoid them for say, Middle East politics, but they're a top tier source for American Jewish news and are likely usable for other topics as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

27 The Daily Californian

Unreliable, their website states "We're an independent, student-run newsroom." I would never consider a student-run newsroom a reliable source, they will definitely have biases. (like for example on the Wikipedia page of Aliza Ayaz most of the edits made were by supposedly students who were the "fans" of Aliza Ayaz, I clearly think this article needs a tag for COI or Paid article, even though the subject meets GNG.) Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Not a good example of student-run newsroom for what I described for the edits(on Aliza Ayaz) but they are mostly COI/Paid. But student-run newsroom can never been reliable, they will have biases, an editorial overview(who have experience in journalism and fact checking is a must). Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 09:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Y, the only situation in which a student newspaper should be considered is if it's claims directly relating to student life at a university (and even then, a professional source would always be preferred). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Rosguill Finished! Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Decent work, these aren't easy and you ended up getting the right answer on almost all of them. That having been said, WP:USEBYOTHERS is something that you should be checking when assessing sources, and will provide more consistent results than your own assessments of whether or not a source is biased (and remember, bias ≠ unreliable). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Content Policy

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: Yes, it should be changed. In the references, they refer to him as just Hannibal. So it should be changed to Hannibal, it is the Wikipedia's policy for common name, also known as WP:COMMONNAME, it is also the reason why PewDiePie's Wikipedia page is PewDiePie instead of Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg because the majority of the references mention him as PewDiePie. If another person with the same name exists, let's take this question, for example, there are other people who are known as Hannibal, so there should be a disambiguation page as per WP:DAB amd also for users who might search him by his full name, it is better to add a redirect as per WP:R under his full name. (the same can be applied to PewDiePie redirect for his full name). Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 16:59, 16 May 2021 (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

Y

Answer: No, because all the sources cite him as Magic Johnson, so it should not be changed. But there should a redirect for his actual name Earvin Johnson, as per the aforementioned WP policies. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 16:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill Finished! Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 16:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill In case if you missed my last ping, if you are busy then I absolutely understand and will wait patiently! ^_^ Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 10:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

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: All of the content is acceptable as it is cited with reliable sources,except for these two phrases 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. lack citation from any reliable sources. As per WP:GNG only information/content from reliable independent sources can be included. Provided they don't violate copyrights(this is something I learned recently in WP:COPYVIO). Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 11:13, 19 May 2021 (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: As per WP:DOB the personal information such as the residence and the contact info should be removed, the rest of the content such as her being a journalist, motivational speaker, and long-distance swimmer can be retained because several reliable sources mention her that way. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 11:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Y

@ Rosguill finished! Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 11:13, 19 May 2021 (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 used in Wikipedia? and why?

Answer- YES! Explanation: Since this image comes under the public domain(US Gov) it isn't copyrighted. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: US Government resources under [[14]] Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

6. Could this image-2 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? Why?

Answer- YES! Explanation: At the bottom of the page it clearly states that all images are public domain. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: [[15]] Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

7. Could this image-3 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? Why?

Answer- YES! Explanation: Under licensing it states "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission." Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: WP:IUPC Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

8. Could this image-4 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? Why?

Answer- NO! Explanation: It says at the bottom of the page that "all rights are reserved", no indication of public domain. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: [[16]] Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

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 which doesn't look naturally taken(for example in the case of a person). (What do I mean by naturally taken? - Like taken in public while the person is giving a speech or attending a rally; there are few exceptions though like for example headshots taken by US government officials or NASA astronauts), so any other headshots or even selfies would either indicate paid editing or COI. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Y, I'd also add that claiming the image as own work can often be a tell. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

: @Rosguill Finished! Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 08:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Neutral point of view

Please read WP:NPOV and MOS:PUFF. Point out the WP:NPOV words/pharses 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: She is a boxer, who turned pro at the age of 19, after winning one amateur fight on December 14, 2013. She then fought under XXX promotion on her next fight in February 2014. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

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: He is a popular Bulgarian actor. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry at the age of 14 and he has featured in 44 films. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Y, depending on the wording in sources, I could go either way on the inclusion of either term "popular, acclaimed". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 8 December 2021 (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: Due weight is what the reliable sources mostly talk about the subject, so widely held views should be given more importance than undue weight which is minority views. Like for example if a subject X is covered in several reliable sources as accomplishing ABC, then that is a due weight to be given to the article, if other not so reliable sources cover the subject X as accomplishing XYZ, this would be undue weight and shouldn't be given that much of an importance. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Y You've got the underlying concept down, which is the important part, but you're using the phrase wrong. You give due weight (not "a due weight") to individual claims (not articles) by giving them rhetorical weight according to their degree of support and emphasis across RSS; giving something more or less than that amount would be undue weight. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill finished! Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No original research

Please read WP:OR and WP:NOT and answer the questions below

13. In your own words, why is Wikipedia not a platform for publishing original research?

Answer: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We only include content that is covered by several reliable and independent sources. The editors on Wikipedia may or may not have proper knowledge of a subject/topic, in order to avoid false or biased information, editors must refrain adding original research content into Wikipedia articles. Any content that is written on Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, if original research is added, then we cannot verify it. For example, if person X witnessed an accident of a celebrity M, then person X should refrain from adding any information which they have witnessed unless that information is covered by independent and reliable sources. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 06:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

14. In your own words, please provide one example with an explanation when it is appropriate to insert an original content or synthesis in an article.

Answer: When you say original content, do you mean copy-pasting original content from the sources directly? It might lead to copyright violation, but if it is a quote of a person from a reliable independent source then we can include that original content in the article. Also, any of the content which is copyright-free and in the public domain can be used as well. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 06:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm asking about situations where synthesis may be permitted, if any exist. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill Ok, so basically synthesis is when the editor infers and try to conclude/infer things based off of what that editor reads in the same or multiple reliable sources. So, let's say a reliable source states person XYZ is on a vacation(without stating the location) in January, and the other reliable source states that person XYZ is in Miami in January, the editor must not infer and write that the person XYZ is on a vacation in Miami in January, unless any other reliable source states this, if no reliable source states this then it is original research or editorial synthesis. Also, it is permitted during any discussions on the talk page here on Wikipedia, I saw this example on WP:SYN. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 18:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You haven't written anything incorrect here, but this wasn't the answer I was looking for. Forms of original content that are allowed include a) original images based on RS materials (e.g. maps of conflict zones or historical travel routes) b) faithful translations of foreign language content where relevant for a quote c) routine unit conversions or d) summary style writing in the lead of content present in the article.

15. See this video and write an article paragraph that properly presents claims supported by the source. Assume that Alsuleiman's opinions are DUE for inclusion as part of this response.

Answer: When asked whether it is allowed for women to wear jeans and trousers outside the home according to Islam, Sh. Shady Alsuleiman responded that Islam demands the clothes of both men and women, be baggy, non-see-through, and non-colorful, so it isn't permissible to wear jeans and trousers as they don't fit into the aforementioned conditions. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 06:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

Rosguill Finished. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 06:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional OR practice

For each of the following, state whether the prompt is an example of original research, as well as your reasoning

1. An editor writes a new article about an album. The entirety of the "Reception" section is just "According to Pitchfork" followed by a direct quote from a review in Pitchfork.

Not an example, as per WP:OR Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

2. Source A in an article about Green Wugs states that 70% of green wugs have a checkerboard pattern in their feathers. Source B states that green wugs with checkerboard patterns have a high incidence of sickle cell anemia. An editor writes in the article 70% of green wugs have checkerboard patterns in their feathers and sickle cell anemia and cites both sources

Yes, because the editor mixed sources A and B, and this is what synthesis is. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

3. Source A in an article about Green Wugs states that 70% of green wugs have a checkerboard pattern in their feathers. Source B states that all green wugs with checkerboard patterns have sickle cell anemia. An editor writes in the article 70% of green wugs have checkerboard patterns in their feathers and sickle cell anemia and cites both sources

Yes Again, the editor mixed sources, and wrote their original research. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

4. In an article about Human rights in South Asia by country, almost all of the sources specifically analyze one country at a time. An editor writes a lead that summarizes the information in the article, including phrases such as roughly half of the countries in South Asia allow for the use of the death penalty and Most countries in South Asia developed their modern legal codes based off of British colonial law.

Not an example, as per WP:CALC. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Y, you're right that this is allowed, but CALC isn't the correct policy shortcut. I'm actually realizing that this exception from SYNTH isn't explicitly laid out anywhere, but is a pretty clear implication of our lead-writing guidelines, and a widely observed practice across the project. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

5. In a review for a song, the editor includes an analysis of the song's lyrics and their meanings that are cited to Genius (website)

Yes, if the analysis was in the website then it isn't original research, but since the editor is analyzing off of the lyrics from a source then this is definitely original research. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

6. In an article titled International reactions to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, an editor creates a map based on the information in the article where countries are colored in based on their public stances on the issue. These stances are individually supported by citations in the article's text, but no map is cited.

Not an example, as per WP:IMAGEOR Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

7. In an article about a company, Source A says that in 2018, the company made $100k in revenue selling Product X. Source B says that in 2018, the company made $200k selling Product Y. An editor writes in the article In 2018, the company made $300k in revenue from selling products X and Y.

Yes, this is original research, the editor miscalculated it(by assuming $200k was also revenue, but it just says "selling" this is could be a gross revenue, not the actual net profit), if source B explicitly mentioned $200k in revenue selling product Y, then it would've not been original research, as per WP:CALC. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

8. In an article about the Climate of South America, a source provides measurements in Celsius. An editor converts the measurements to Fahrenheit in the article.

Not an example, as per WP:CALC Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

@Rosguill finished! :) Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (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. Install CV-revdel. After saving, you may 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. When providing examples, be specific

No	Criterion	Application	Example	Mentor comments
1	G1
2	G2
3	G3
4	G4
5	G5
6	G6
7	G7
8	G8
9	G9
10	G10
11	G11
12	G12
13	G13
14	G14

Article and redirect 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. When providing examples, be specific.

No	Criterion	Application	Example	Mentor comments
1	A1
2	A2
3	A3
5	A5
7	A7
9	A9
10	A10
11	A11
12	R2
13	R3