|
Welcome New Trainee!
Instructions: CommanderWaterford, if you haven't already read the NPP Tutorial and have become somewhat familiar with the flowcharts and page curation tool, please do so now as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. You will also take part in a few live exercises as part of your training. You are expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below and will provide, in your own words, a one or two paragraph summary of what you've learned, one section at a time, in the order presented; please be mindful to maintain the formatting. After you complete each subsection, I will review your responses and make a determination. Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at your own pace.
It may seem like a lot at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cake walk, and has been referred to as a step under becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions if you don't quite understand something - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 13:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Notability (Pt. 1)
- Purpose of the notability policy is to ensure that enough reliable sources exist to be able to write an article on the topic that complies with our RS and OR policies. This has the added bonus of also getting the WP:WEIGHT right, because fringe topics and non-notable topics will not be covered or will barely be covered in reliable sources. The specifics of notability are defined by the GNG and SNG policies. It is OK to decline articles if RS's can't be found. We prefer accuracy. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Read the masthead. The most important aspect to consider for inclusion of a standalone article is the policy WP:V. "Worthy of notice" is not dependent on fame, importance, or popularity, and that includes having multiple articles in the echo chamber that comprise news media and eZines on the internet. A person might be an inventor of something we use everyday, but didn't receive widespread media attention, or firsts in an industry, or females who beat the odds. For example, William McMurray (engineer), Teneca Wolfe-Bell, and Mollie Taylor Stevenson Jr. - clearly notable, encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion.
- Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to get this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but if the topic should have its own article or not. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- WP:GNG is a guideline - it clearly states: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple could be as few as 3, and we also have WP:IAR if common sense tells us the topic is notable. It is possible that an AfD will result, and then consensus decides if it's worthy of inclusion. Our first consideration is that WP is the sum of all knowledge. Our job as reviewers is to make sure we are being compliant with WP:NOT, and once we clear that phase, reviewing gets easier. Is it a BLP about an academic - there will not be much coverage in mainstream media. At that point we look at WP:NBIO. If it's an organization or company, we look at WP:CORP, etc. Our approach as reviewers is to try to keep articles, not delete them which is a last resort. You'll have promo & marketing articles about companies who are using WP to promote their business, or people who are not notable but want to be by using WP - that is what we don't want.
- SNGs include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Topics which pass an SNG are presumed to deserve an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article. Several SNGs do additionally provide guidance when topics should not be created. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 Y
-
- An organization or company is considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial coverage by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content needs to be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, WP:RS can be found then the org or corp should not have an article on it.CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- (tbd)
- (tbd)
- (tbd)
- (tbd)
- (tbd)
- (tbd)
- (tbd)
- It's not necessary to summarize each one. My comments above already address most but it is important to know our norms. I can't stress enough the importance of eliminating/defusing promotional material in WP articles, including discrete advertising attempts by companies and organizations. We must also keep an eye out for organizations that try to use WP to promote their respective advocacies.
- Common Wikipedia practices when evaluating notability
- This is a very general question :) Do you refer to WP:SIGCOV or more the NPP Flowchart, Triage via NewsPagesFeed for example?
- Yes, it is overly general and I will reword it on the master copy, so don't be concerned. By common practices, I am referring to the initial steps you would take when you first begin reviewing an article in the NPP QUEUE; i.e., what you would look for first, second, third, etc. Also, another aspect of common practices is relative to topics about schools, geography, sports, music, politicians, and species; almost all are generally accepted as notable so nominating one for AfD is an exercise in futulity, even if there is minimal sourcing beyond verifiability. The only way one of those topics would not survive AfD is if it is a complete hoax, an unaccredited school, a rock or pond in someone's backyard, etc.
Exercises
CommanderWaterford, following are 3 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with what you looked for first, what issues, if any, you found and what actions you would have taken. Atsme 💬 📧 15:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just an off-topic notice before dealing with those articles - your ping did not reach me again, I just went to the page a couple of minutes ago. Very strange. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Done. @Atsme: CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Dead Peepol
- First I always take an overview of the article, you get some kind of instinct after looking thousands of articles if something is wrong or in general at the very first place the article is "in good shape". Next I always look at the history, who created the article, how long ago, how many Editors had been involved. Afterwards I check the talk page of the article and of the creator (especially its history), if there are any issues mentioned. The Creator has dozens of deleted articles on their talk page and 2 interesting warnings - one of assumed paid editing which they denied and another of editing also via IP anonymously. What gets to my attention is that he had to create articles via AfC so I took a look at the Editing Restrictions but does not saw any entry for them. I take a look of the sources, I see that there are several sources which are not correctly formatted. Now I verify this article against WP:NMUSIC, none of the criteria seem to be fulfilled for the duo itself. Regarding one of their songs could apply WP:NSONG since the one million stream do have sources, but there are no chart placing, nothing which would fit into the rest of the criteria. Since this is an article about the group itself they are not notable per WP:NMUSIC. Does apply WP:GNG? "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" ? The sources are lacking at least of independency and reliability since already the very first 5 sources are ones which do seem to accept paid mentions or interviews (advertising). In the very end it seems to me like a candidate for AfD. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y Good job!
- Michelle Singletary
- In general the same like above. Categorization seem to be ok. Seems I get to know her since she is bringing me financial peace and cover (kidding). She fits into WP:JOURNALIST #1,2 and eventually also 4 because of her work for the Washington Post. Her sources are mainly WP:RS. Problematic is the promotional listings of her works. In general the article is somewhat more promotional than encyclopaedic. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y I agree with all that you stated, and yes, that BLP is more like a CV or resumé and poorly written. Your job as a reviewer is to tag it, which is what I just did, so take a look at the tag. I used the curation tools which gives me choice, and it also indicated a potential copyvio, but that was likely initiated because of all the titles. See the notice that was generated by the curation tool and posted on User_talk:BrittWadner. We control whether a notice goes to the creator or not, and also what is included in that notice. On this BLP, I added the stub tag, checked to see if it had a TP - if not, create one, and add a TP header. If an article would be of interest to multiple projects, I use the banner shell template WikiProjectBannerShell (remove the prepended colon to make it work). I have even expanded articles when I have extra time.
- Death of Logan Melgar
- Result of a proposed split at Talk:SEAL_Team_Six/Archive_2#Split_proposed. Looks to me like a WP:VICTIM article, good sources, 6 of 8 are WP:RS. Needs "coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role" - clearly given. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y It was a high profile, notable event. As a sidebar note - there are times when I will add material and/or citations. I see my job as helping to build the encyclopedia, and make improvements as needed. I assume the identity of an average reader, and how the published information makes me feel. Was it presented from a NPOV? Was it informative? Did it make me want to research further by utilizing the cited sources? Was the prose engaging and easy to read? I tend to read articles outloud when I'm reviewing to see how easy the text flows. I will also copyedit as needed rather than just tag an article.
- Y PASSED Part 1 and the exercise. Please proceed to Part 2. Atsme 💬 📧 19:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Atsme - " Please proceed to Part 2." --> ?? What exactly do you mean since Pt. 2 (Wikipedia policy and guidelines) I already answered or am I missing something? CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
-
- CommanderWaterford, please read this little tidbit about paragraphs - not phrases. Is English not your 1st language? If you will notice in Part 1 above, I had to add some points (highlighted text) that I felt you missed in your responses. Also notice that I did not clear your answers with a Y but passed you in this section because of your responses in the exercise. As I stated above, this course is not a cake walk - it requires your attention - so if you think the course is too time consuming, what do you think being a NPP reviewer entails? Reviewing is a far greater responsibility, and it is far more time consuming than this course. Are you sure this is what you want to do? You are being evaluated as a potential NPP reviewer, including all of our discussions. NPP grants you certain user rights that not every editor comes by easily, and to keep those rights, you have to participate as a productive reviewer; not everyone passes the training. It requires effort, competence and a "want to" attitude. If you pass this training course, then I will ping one of the NPP admins who will come in and read my final evaluation and probably review your responses when making the final determination to either grant or deny the user right. Good luck. Atsme 💬 📧 22:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Atsme - I am already working on it but I was not aware of having to write my third state exam. I stated nowhere that it is too time consuming, I said only that it is very time consuming. I will let you know when I think Part 2 is ready. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Atsme Pt. 2 done. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Atsme Pt. 3 ready. Have a good sunday :) CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Atsme All done. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)
- A fundamental desired principle on Wikipedia - we assume in general that each and every editor edits are made in good faith. The absolute majority of our editors do try to help the project. In the case of disagreement we should try as best we can to explain kindly and resolve the problem, not causing or forcing more conflict. Be civil and follow the existing dispute resolution procedure instead of attacking editors or edit-warring with them. Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without presenting evidence in the form of diffs. Repeatedly assuming bad faith motives could be interpreted as personal attacks. If bad faith editing is evident, we should not act unpolitely or even worse attack the other editor. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y
- Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page (which incluudes especially not only the article mainspace, also all other pages) must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. Biographies of living persons needs to be written conservatively and with highest regard for the privacy of the article subject. Contentious text about living persons that is unsourced or does have only poor sources should be removed immediately, without any further discussion. Text should further not be added to the article if the only sourcing is some kind of tabloid journalism. We should never use self-published sources like for example website, blogs, tweets, instagram posts etc. as sources of material about a living person, only possible if it was written or published by the subject itself. Editors must not act in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization of a subject WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Editors have to be very cautious when identifying subjects who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of the subject has not been intentionally hold back, for example in court cases, editors should better exclude it, Editors have to take care of WP:BLPNAME.
- Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article, WP:BLP1E applies. A distinction must always be made between WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. The firtst one should only be applied to living people, or those who have recently died, and to so-called low-profile individuals. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted. Persons who are not public figures we must seriously take care of not including material that suggests the person has committed a crime or is accused of having done so, WP:BLPCRIME applies.
- For articles, {BLP dispute} may be used on BLPs needing attention; {BLP sources} on BLPs needing better sourcing (an alternative is {BLP primary sources} and {BLP unsourced} for no sources at all. {BLP noticeboard} should be placed on the talk page of BLP articles that are being discussed on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Subjects of BLP Articles who have legal concerns about material they find about themselves in Wikipedia may contact the OTRS Team.
- CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y
- COI Editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or financial and other relationships. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. No Editor should edit in their own interests, nor in the interests of their external relationships. So for example should a biography not be an autobiography or an employee should not write an article about his company.
- Y
-
- Conflict of Interest Editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about themselves, their family, friends, employers, clients and other relationships. Any external relationship can mean some kind of conflict of interest. COI Editing is not a judgement about their editing, at least only a description of the situation.
- Editors with a Conflict of Interest should disclose their COI via WP:DISCLOSE, they are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly they should propose modifications on talk pages or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, new articles should be created by them via the Afrticle for Creation (AfC) process. While dealing with undisclosed Edits which could be COI Editing you have to distinguish between simple WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI Editing. Whether an editor is editing in advocacy intentions should first be addressed at their talk page before eventually raising an incident a the Noticeboard.
- Y
-
- The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed. Further they must provide links on their user-page(s) to all active accounts on external websites through which they advertise or obtain paid editing. Editors being paid for their contributions to Wikipedia must declare who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relationship. They may do so on their user page, on the talk page of the articles they are editing, or in the related edit summaries. They could so so for example by using the template {connected contributor (paid)} at the top of the talk page.
- In Short: Other Editors who are in contact with them do need to know that they are paid editors. It is called "undisclosed paid editing" if they are editing without such a declaration. Such a behaviour has to be reported per WP:PAID on the Administrators' Noticeboard (Incidents) or the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard WP:COIN.
- Editors responding to edit requests from COI or paid editors are expected to do so carefully, especially they should look on their own for independent sources instead of blindly trust the sources presented by the paid editor. Paid editors must ensure that they own the copyright of text they want to add.
- Y
-
- Editors should generally not create articles about themselves or anyone they know and if, they should do it via the AfC process. If someone creates articles about themselves they have no rights on the content of the article per WP:OWN.
- CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y
-
- WMF does not own the copyright on Wikipedia articles. All articles are copyrighted unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. Wikipedia must have permission to use copyrighted works, using materials that infringe the copyrights of others is strictly prohibited. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material in a wikipedia article. If we are copying text within Wikipedia, we must at least put a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page, preferred is to further add those links to each talk pages. If we are reusing text we created on our own this is not mandatory but desired. WP:CWW applies.
- If parts of an article contains copyrighted material it should be removed with the source url mentioned in the Edit Summary, afterwards Revision deletion should be requested by tagging the article or directly asking an admin doing so. Further we should leave a message explaining why the removal was made on the talk page, along with the original source, if known.
- If the whole article seem to be a copyright infringement we should check if there is an older version which could be reverted. If this is not the case the article needs to be nominated for speedy deletion informing the contributor. If there are reasons that the text should be rewritten instead of removed, we blank the article or the appropriate section with the {subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here} template, and list the page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
- If the creator of the article is the copyright holder of the text they have the right to post it without violating copyright, so long as they provide a suitable release under Wikipedia's licenses or a free license that is compatible with them.
- Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by an administrator to prevent further issues. Important policies: WP:COPYVIO, spotting Copyvio Problems per WP:SPCP.
- CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y
-
- Hoaxes
- Adding hoaxes, incorrect information, or unverifiable content to articles is undesired. Hoax articles hurt the reputation of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable but only if the hoax is recognised as such.
- If we see an article that may be a hoax, we should mark it with {hoax} or {image hoax} templates and propose it for deletion. If it is indeed found to be a hoax, it is appropriate to warn the user with the {uw-hoax} template.
- A hoax sometimes is very often difficult to identify properly so Hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates, only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be tagged for speedy deletion as {db-hoax}.
- Y
- Personal Attacks/Unsourced BIOs
- Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors and/or comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons is prohibited and considered as personal attacks. Insulting an editor is further also always a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Arguments should in no way be personalized; your edit should always be directed at content. Always follow Wikipedia:Etiquette, onbe of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Warning an Editor of personal attacks via templates is possible although a customized message relating to the specific situation may be many times the better way.
- Personal attacks are disruptive. The best way often to respond to an isolated personal attack is to ignore it. Recurring personal attacks indeed can be solved through dispute resolution procedures. Any editor can remove personal attacks against other editors. Recurring personal attacks can be considered as disruptive editing and may result in blocking. In extreme cases also isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Blocking a user should only be done for prevention, not punishment.
- It is further prohibited to create pages that serves only the purpose of disparage or threaten its subject and biographical articles that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced.
- CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y
Communications (Pt. 3)
This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
- Discussions with creators of new pages
- While patrolling new pages, it is important and essential to remember not to bite new editors (newbies). That is very important especially because newcomers write most of the content in Wikipedia. If we see a new user or IP user contributing significantly, it is advised to post a welcome template to their talk page, for example {subst:welcome} or {subst:welcomeg}. For IP users specifically templates like {subst:welcome-anon} or {subst:Anonwelcomeg} exist. Always welcomed is to point out in a friendly feedback how they can make their contributions even better, the absolute majority of the users do welcome constructive feedback.
While patrolling new pages it is important to always assume good faith as much as possible, or, spoken the contrary to assume some kind of "incompetence" instead of bad intentions. New Editors are known for doing edits which seem in the very first place malicious but could also be some kind of mistake, the editor may not be very Computer-sophisticated. Also kind of usual is that Editors often do not understand that their edits are really visible to the entire world immediately, in such cases we should consider draftifying the article.
- If we need to tag an article written by a newcomer, we should consider leaving a friendly message on their talk page, pointing them to Help:Maintenance template removal, which is dedicated to explaining the process of addressing and removing maintenance tags and including that anyone can remove them (except for AFD and CSD tags) after the problems have been addressed. The majority of new editors don't have an idea what they are permitted to do or not.
- Essential is to keep in mind especially the following policies: Wikipedia:Etiquette + WP:AGF and WP:BITE. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y
- Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss
We should consider that templating at all – to regulars or newcomers – may be taken as rude by being quite impersonal. No one likes to feel they are being in a way of being processed automatically. Templates cannot help but inherently convey that feeling. Sometimes it is more likely to communicate well writing in our own words what the special issue is instead of using a Template. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars applies. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y Adding a useful tip: I have consistently found it to be much better when editors communicate politely, demonstrating patience, understanding and a willingness to help. Liken it to assuming the role of "tour guide" for the project, but if you're too busy with another project at that time, simply direct them to WP:The Teahouse.
- Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
Always remain polite, neutral and friendly in tone. Assume good faith whenever possible. Stay calm if the editing gets hot. We presume that people who contribute to Wikipedia do have the following competencies:
The ability to communicate in English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively + the ability to read sources and assess their reliability, Editors should in geberal have knowledge on Wikipedias Rules and Policies how to identify reliable sources WP:RS and be able to decide when sources could be used for citing in articles WP:ILC. We assume further that editors should be able to communicate with other editors in order to reach for a consensus.
Furthermore editors should have the ability to understand their own knowledge and competencies, avoid editing in areas where their are lacking of skills and/or knowledge causes them to create errors which others need to correct/clean up. If a user is making constantly the same mistake, we need to verify whether the user has been given any advice to avoid this mistake. The absolute majority of editors want to contribute productively but simply may not know how to do so. Blocking or banning a user is always considered a last step when all other ways of correcting problems have been tried and have failed. WP:COMPETENCE applies. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wikilove/positive comments
- Very important. General spirit of collegiality and understanding among wikipedians. Key components of the Wikilove Spirit are:
Always follow the Wiki Etiquette (Wikiquette), respect other contributors, love and welcome newcomers, follow our policies – a basic rule set, assume good faith and assume the premise of good faith., aim for a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, stay cool when the editing gets hot, take some distance if you're feeling upset about some Editors/Editing and "Forgive and forget" – try to follow the following spirit: neither mentally, verbally, or physically do injury, whether by doing it oneself, getting it done by others, or approving it when done by others. Positive Comments in general are highly welcomed - they do motivate other editors and show appreciation for their contributions. Everyone likes to feel appreciated. In General: Make love, not war CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y In general, follow WP:Atsme's Law
 and from time to time, utilize some of our humor essays when possible as they demonstrate that we are, after all, human.
- Indeed the first page I did not come across already. :) We have hundreds ;-) of warning templates - divided into different sections like warnings / blocking / behaviour towards other editors etc. - which could be used to communicate with Users in some kind of automated, standard way - many of them do have several level of "escalation" levels, called multi level templates, several are only single level templates. All standardized templates take several parameters that are entirely optional. Multi Level templates do generally have 4 levels plus one final level, the vast majority of them are for warning issues especially fighting Vandalism and Disruptive Editing:
- Level 1 – A notice – Assuming good faith. Generally includes "Welcome to Wikipedia" or some variant friendly text.
- Level 2 – Caution – No faith assumption, just a note.
- Level 3 – Warning – Assuming bad faith. Generally includes "Please stop".
- Level 4 – Final Warning – Assumes bad faith, last warning.
- Level 4im – Only Warning – Assuming bad faith
- We have templates for welcoming users and welcoming foreign speaking users, for blocking them etc. Blocking templates differ in some ways from the others - they do enclosed their warning inside a message box, further the order of the parameters is different: whereas user warning templates are in order of use, block templates are not.
- It is possible to get a preview of those templates. If you are not comfortable with the template it is always advisable to get this preview before finally sending them. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- YGood job! Adding a helpful tip: Templates are best served to vandals, and editors who are being downright beligerent. Add the appropriate warning and do not engage. If a newbie or veteran editor is not being collegial, first consider a friendly reminder in your own words on their UTP, and include a wikilink to the applicable behavioral policy. The hardest thing to learn is to not take the bait.
Deletion (Pt. 4)
- AfD is where it is discuseed whether an article should be deleted or not. Articles are discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Outcome could be that the article is kept, merged, redirected, renamed/moved to another title or deleted per deletion policy. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y
- Several checks are expected to be done before nominating an Article for Deletion. First of all confirmation that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep. a) Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing. b) Read the article's talk page for previous nominations ir any other relevant issue c) Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations before renominating. d) Check if there are interlanguage links e) Search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet e) Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not suitable for AfD. f) Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar for academic subjects. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y
- PROD: Shortcut (in theory ;-) ) to the normal deletion discussion process, an article or file can be proposed for uncontroversial deletion, but only once. If no one contests the proposed deletion within seven days, an administrator may delete the page. Everyone can decline the PROD Nomination w/o explanation nor informing the Nominator (which IMHO needs to be changed). Prerequisites per WP:PRODNOM. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- BLPPROD: Biographies of living persons without any sources at all, no matter if reliable or not or links to support the claims made in the article may be proposed for deletion and will be deleted unless at least one reliable source is added. (Question here out of the field work: What about if the article had 2 sources, both dead from the beginning, and 2 external links (also dead from the beginning) ? Eligible for BLPPROD or not?!) CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y
- Per WP:SOFTDELETE special kind of deletion which may be used if a deletion discussion receives minimal participation - the article may be deleted but the article can be restored for any reason on request. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Y
- A page may be deleted by an administrator without waiting for any discussion. WP:CSD apply. From my own experience most common is CSD G11, Unambiguous advertising or promotion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- YHelpful tip: CSD can be tricky; therefore, a NPP reviewer needs strong support before tagging for CSD. Become familiar with all the A, G, F, U etc. reasons. If CSD is used improperly, inadvertent or otherwise, it could become a reason to lose the NPP user right.
Exercise
I'm only going to include one excercise because I believe it covers a wide enough range for the points that need to be covered.
- I do believe so, too :) This is a very. very tricky one. First of all CopyVio Check, negative. Secondly User and UTP Check of the Creator, obviously the article had been moved to draft before and he received a COI Warning before, indeed the article could be written by some COI Editor, 100% of the contributions of this editor are in relation to Donald Trump. So independent of the NPP outcome we should inform on their UTP that we do also suspect COI Editing for the case of any further contributions. The PageLog shows me that it has first be reviewed on 15 March, afterwards marked as confusing and then unreviewed and it has a CopyVio Suspicion Tag by a bot. If the subject is not a candidate for Deletion we would have perhaps think about if their edits are WP:COI or WP:ADVOCACY, but first let us examine the sources: Of the 22 sources currently presented there are 7 WP:RS presented - the main problem: None of the sources do mention several sculptures made by an American artist or they are dead links, one of the sources is not verifiable. There are 4 sources which do treat a fraud of the origin of one sculpture, they say that there is only one sculpture and it was not made by an American Trump supporter like stated in the article. Another source is the NYPost which is classified as non WP:RS. So the article would need to be rewritten, a different lead and so forth so that the subject of the article is clearly put on the fraud. The question is now if the fraud around this statue for itself would establish WP:GNG and I would deny this, WP is not news and the fraud itself is only mentioned in the news once, beside this I did not find further significant coverage. Furthermore we could think of masquerading advertisement for this single statue by creating some kind of "fake news" about the origin. There could be arguments contradicting this, saying that the Fraud itself is sufficient for an article. All in all therefore this is a candidate for AfD. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Your final result (AfD) aligns with my initial thoughts. Since I use the Cite unseen script (see my tips below), I was spared some research, adding that my evaluation was based primarily on this NYTimes article which affords us an accurate representation of the statue itself. (If you don't subscribe to NYTimes, use the incognito feature in Chrome.) First question is does that one NYTimes article or even an additional 3 more support a standalone article? I'm of the mind it does not because it is really nothing more than a single campaign prop among thousands. Per WP:NOTNEWS: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style.
- I pretty much align with your conclusion about the sources, but I don't quite grasp your mention of fraud unless you are referring to the initial mold coming from China, which is what garnered the attention of biased media that is hungry for clickbait, and caused the article to be created in noncompliance with WP:ATTACK. For example, one of the many unreliable sources Politics USA published what Zegan’s business partner, Jose Mauricio Mendoza, said about Zegan; i.e. I was the architect of this,” Mendoza said. Zegan’s name was used, Mendoza added, because “no one is going to buy ‘Jose’ stuff, at least not a Donald Trump statue.”
 who really cares? And who will care 10 years from now?
- Following are the notes I jotted down yesterday morning when contemplating the use of that article for this excercise:
- Fails WP:GNG, WP:SYNTH and WP:10YT. I was torn between a G10 and AfD because this article could be construed as an attack page to ridicule Trump about the statue's China connection. The bulk of the cited sources have trivial mention, if any mention at all about the fiberglass creation. The image has been nominated for AfD at Commons. Footnote #1, The Hill, was published in 2016 before the statue was created; Footnote #7 has no mention at all, and most of the other cited sources are not RS. The cited interview with Zegan was about the rally, not the fiberglass statue. The author of the article focused only on biased media that aligned with their POV rather than more neutral sources such as The NYTimes. They used SYNTH to create the article, and focused more on discrediting Trump by focusing only on the mold's origin coming from China in an attempt to mimic Trump's political position on China. The article not only fails WP:GNG it fails NPOV because of the biased and unreliable sources that support ridiculing Trump.
- I went ahead and did the AfD just now. Atsme 💬 📧 13:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)
- Tagging an article is often used to indicate problems. Many Editors object to the practice of tagging instead of fixing, mainly for time reasons. Nevertheless tagging is important to point if and what kind of problem an article has. Tagging allows editors to give others editors hints and warns readers about problematic content. Any editor without a conflict of interest who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove a tag. Tag-Bombing may be interpreted as disruptive and needs to be avoided WP:OVERTAG. Confusing or subjective tags, such as {npov} for example, need to be explained on the article's talk page and/or in an edit summary. Referring to the applying policy in the Edit Summary may be helpful. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- YI removed the extra "P" in OVERTAG that caused it to redlink.
- Goal of the category system is to provide navigational links in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse and find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics (for example on their watch lists).
- Categories are not the only means of enabling users to browse sets of related pages. Other tools may be for example lists and navigation boxes. In general it is desired to be as specific as possible when it comes to categorization. Don't add pages to non-existent categories - WP:CATSPECIFIC and WP:CATDDapply. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- YIf you come across an article that does not have categories, go ahead and add them rather than tag it. The same applies for other missing parts, like no article TP (or list of relative projects), or missing a short description, etc.
- Stub articles are generally short, or below Wikipedia standard, or both. A stub is in general an article deemed too short to provide encyclopaedic coverage of a subject. We can find the official definition at WP:STUB. If they are not sorted, then it means they are less likely to be edited to higher quality as nobody gets attention of them. There is a dedicated WikiProject which members do take especially care of stub sorting. Stub categories attract experts in specific areas. WP:WSS/P applies. CommanderWaterford CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- YIf you come across an article that is a stub, add the stub template. Now that AfC and NPP are combined, NPP reviewers have frontline access to all new creations, and should exert the effort into making them a more complete and pleasant experience for our readers.
- Passed Part 5 Atsme 💬 📧 13:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Exercise
- Stabiliti - note: the curation tool marked this article as potential spam. Please review the article, and also respond as to why you believe it may have been considered spam.
- First check here is CopyVio - which is negative. The creator of the article has a clear disclosed COI, according to their user page they are the director of WinterSun Studios Private Limited which seem to be company which produced the subject of the article. That is of course a clear indication but it may have been considered spam because it first of all uses several external links hidden into the Article source to point the reader to promotional webpages on facebook for the film, further the given sources are all not verifiable, they are linking to facebook pages of the film company as well. In its current form it should be treated like an example of advertising masquerading as article. It could be an example for speedy deletion if it would be an article of blatant advertising which cannot be rewritten into a neutral, encyclopaedic version. This is actually not the case, if we remove the promotional external links and not verifiable sources linking to facebook and could find sources for this article it perhaps could be "rescued". If we don't have time to modify the article we should tag the article with an {Advert} template, further with the {External links} template. Finally we could advise the Community to watch this article especially for abuse onto the articles talk page {Prone to spam} but a WP:BEFORE search gave me absolutely 0 results which could establish notability per WP:NFILM or even WP:GNG apart a IMDB Source which is not a reliable one, so it seems a candidate for WP:PROD or WP:AFD deletion, I will try - in very good faith although having other experiences - first WP:PROD. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Evaluation
Note to trainee: Once I have completed the evaluation and you have passed the course, you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review.
Based on the above exercises, responses and overall performance, CommanderWaterford has adequately demonstrated his ability to handle the responsibility of being an NPP reviewer, and has passed this course. Once he adjusted to my initial expectations and requirements of the course, he buckled down and focused on the task at hand, demonstrating the necessary critical thinking skills. I don't forsee any issues with English not being his first language as it is barely noticeable, and in fact, I consider his ability to speak at least 2 languages to be an asset to the project. Atsme 💬 📧 02:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you @Atsme, spoken the truth I do speak 5 languages :-) :-) Applied for NPP Perm a minute ago. Once again, thank you for your training. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome & good luck. 5 languages?!!! Wow!! We could use your help at Otrs. Consider applying for it here. Atsme 💬 📧 19:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Tips
- User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js - a very useful tool and easy to install. The script prepends a small icon to each citation in the Reference section indicating the grading and type of source; most are in sync with WP:RSP.
- User:Evad37/duplinks-alt - highlights duplicate wikilinks. We should only wikilink once, sometimes twice if wikilinked in the lead and again further enough down in the article that it would prove useful. When reviewing, you can quickly find and eliminate wikilink overkill.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Passed Atsme 💬 📧 02:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
