Jump to content

User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

User:Ovinus

checkY Passed July 27, 2022
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Notability in a nutshell

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.



Welcome New Trainee!

Instructions: Ovinus, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.

Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page.

Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time, in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.

Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace.

It may seem overwhelming 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 cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 12:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Redo ping to Ovinus as he didn't receive initial ping. Atsme 💬 📧 20:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

  • (Regarding the HTML comment above: I will say I have zero interest in being an administrator!) The notability of a topic is a key factor in its suitability for its own Wikipedia article or list. Notability simply means that a topic has attracted sufficient attention as measured through reliable and independent sources. The notability standard's purpose is to ensure that Wikipedia does not contain an indiscriminate catalog of every possible topic out there; such a collection would violate core Wikipedia principles, in particular the first pillar, which states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It also helps ensure that editors can find verifiable information for the article. That a topic is notable still does not guarantee that it deserves a stand-alone article: Editors have the discretion to merge articles to, say, place topics in better context; to remove otherwise-notable articles which violate what Wikipedia is not (say, detailed instructions on cooking a ragoust); to remove pages which violate the neutral point of view policy because they are restricted to one side of a controversial argument; and even to split notable, but overly long, lists into sublists, for accessibility. Notability, however, is a requisite for a stand-alone article to exist.
  • Once achieved, notability is, in general, forever. Unless consensus changes to exclude certain types of articles, or to restrict SNGs which were used to get around the GNG, if a topic is notable, it will be notable one hundred years from now. In the other direction, just because a source is old, or locked up in dusty libraries, does not mean that it cannot contribute to notability. But a dearth of notability is not forever; a formerly non-notable Peter the anteater may rise to fame as a champion of anteater rights and earn his own article if he meets the GNG. And no amount of editing can change notability; if a subject is not notable to begin with, fluffing it up with background information and questionable sources does not help.
  • Of course, editors will disagree on what information is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, depending on their interests and philosophy. Thus, guidelines established through (often excruciating) site-wide consensus are used to determine notability. By far the most important is the general notability guideline (abbreviated GNG), which states that the topic of a stand-alone article or list is "presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Each of these three elements is crucial and occasionally subtle—I will attempt to exegete the GNG below. There are also subject-specific notability guidelines—abbreviated SNGs, and often with shortened names like WP:NFOOTY and WP:NCORP—which are, variously, supplementary to the GNG, dominant over the GNG, or entirely subservient to it. I will try to explain this aspect below. A thorough understanding of notability criteria is important as an editor and paramount as an effective NPP reviewer. A reviewer not confident in their assessment of an article's notability should leave it unreviewed.
  • General reflections: Before reading this full page, I didn't have enough emphasis on the importance of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I think this applies more to WP:NEVENT and the closely related WP:BIO1E, so I will try to understand those better. I'm also not sure how WP:NPOL relates to all this, which I'll explain below. Finally, maybe I could get a clarification on editors' attitude toward proclamations of "inclusionism" and "deletionism", esp. now seeing an AfD-related case on ArbCom. I think I'm generally careful and civil in discussions, but on my user page I call myself a deletionist. Perhaps that userbox is incompatible with being an NPP reviewer. Ovinus (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Ovinus, it's always best to approach each situation from a NPOV, and maintain a pragmatic approach to your work on WP. I highly recommend that you read, and re-read Notability in a nutshell at the top of this page. (Remember to ping me when you complete each part, and/or if you have a question. ) Atsme 💬 📧 00:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Atsme Indeed, being impartial is difficult but important. I did read that passage before reading WP:Notability. Is my writing here too focused on the details of how we determine it rather than the general notion of what makes something notable? Or is there something else you’d like me consider? Ovinus (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Ovinus, there are other things I'd like for you to consider. There are situations when an event or person is noteworthy but may not have "significant" coverage. I like that you used sufficient in lieu of significant. If you come across an article that is completely unsourced, we first make sure that it's not OR, not notable, and not a hoax. The latter are typically sourced but the sources don't support it. If it checks out to be notable, we (a) add RS that support what is written, if we have time or (b) draftify the article, and politely communicate with the article creator on their UTP, offer our help if they don't understand inline citations or how to add references, or send them to WP:Teahouse. If the work is sourced, and just needs a clean-up and/or inline citations, we tag it, but if we have time, we go ahead and fix it because once it's marked patrolled, the article is INDEXED. Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: I see. Well, I guess the thrust of notability, putting aside all the guidelines that attempt to put it on rigorous footing, is whether something has made an impact. While the significant coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG is often a good signal of that impact, it can fail in both directions (e.g., too much emphasis on singular events, too little emphasis on impressive contributions by lesser-known scientists, not enough on geographical information that makes WP a better gazetteer). So an example of a noteworthy person who might not have gotten significant coverage, and a rather embarrassing one for Wikipedia, is Donna Strickland before her winning the Nobel Prize. Her work was important to her field, and Wikipedia would have been better to have an article about her—hence why we have WP:NACADEMIC. An example of a notable event has not garnered significant coverage... this, I really don't know. Ovinus (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The general notability guideline states that a stand-alone article or list is presumed notable if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Each of these three aspects are crucial to meeting the GNG and should not be divorced from another. Significant coverage, often abbreviated WP:SIGCOV, is coverage which describes a topic in detail. It really lies on a spectrum. One can have volumes devoted to the study of anteaters and trivially conclude that anteaters have received significant coverage. On the other hand, one can observe only a brief mention of a local pet anteater in The New York Times and, finding nothing else, conclude that this coverage is not significant, and that therefore Peter is not (yet!) suitable for his own article. Reliable sources... well, I'll try to describe them below. In short, they are secondary sources from which information can be trusted. They are not necessarily sources which are "unbiased" or espouse a "view from nowhere". They need not be online or trivial to access. But, for the purposes of our discussion on notability, they must provide significant coverage of the article topic. Finally, independence means a lack of intellectual association between sources and the topic, and between each other. For example, an anteater plushie company that has spent millions on press releases will not see its own Wikipedia article on the basis of these sources, and a single newspaper's series of meticulous articles on the company will not help (or even combined with another series by that newspaper's subsidiaries) if there are no other sources, per the "multiple sources" criterion. (Also, WP:NCORP applies, which comes later.)
  • The number of sources may vary. At least one has to be a secondary source, to ensure verifiability is achievable. If that source covers the topic in great depth, that may be sufficient. But ideally, multiple secondary sources should be found. The demand on source quality is higher on biographies of living people and on companies and organizations.
  • General reflections: At WP:Articles for deletion/Demi Rose I thought that the given sources were independent, reliable, and gave significant coverage by being interviews with the subject. Now reading WP:NPEOPLE (which I should have cited), I see no difference from the GNG. Yes, there are some long footnotes explaining what independence entails in this context... but is there a substantive difference from the GNG? Ovinus (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Prior to the internet, "significant" coverage as we know it today simply didn't exist beyond local, regional & a few national magazines. The first "coast-to-coast" TV broadcast didn't happen until Sept 1951. Dating back even further to the 19th & early- to mid-20th centuries, coverage was even less, especially when considering notable women and academics. Historically speaking, "firsts" are typically notable, as is history itself. There are nuances to consider when looking for significant coverage to establish notability, which is why I really appreciated your use of "sufficient" coverage above. The topic/person should satisfy our 3 core content policies (NPOV, V, OR) first and foremost, and then we look at the sources and inline citations. Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I didn’t actually think about the lack of proper old media and the difficulty of accessing it, even if it did exist. So, by the “impact” metric I mentioned above, older topics may still be notable even if there isn’t the same degree of coverage as a modern day equivalent (whatever they even means!) would have. I’m not exactly sure how this applies as a reviewer, though. Ovinus (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Granted, we don't get enough true-blue encyclopedic content - the kind of events and articles about trailblazers that have been written about in books, newspapers, articles & other historic documents that have been preserved by historians, academics, and librarians, including the actual narratives by authors of a bygone era. Some geographical features/places are preserved in the National Register, there are monuments & paintings that are testament to the artist, and other types of documentation/images that can be found with a visit to Newspaper archives - that's when WP:V matters most. You will be amazed at what you'll find there, but it is much harder to find than what is popular today, such as politics, sports, movies, video games, and music. Atsme 💬 📧 21:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Life would be easier, were the GNG the only notability policy. Alas, such a Wikipedia would be infested with articles on elementary schools, local politicians, and Floridian shenanigans. It would also perhaps exclude otherwise-encyclopedic subjects. Thus, editors have developed some special notability criteria, with various relations to the GNG.
  • Some SNGs supplement the GNG, in the sense if either the GNG or SNG applies, the topic is notable. This relationship is the most intuitive; the SNG is simply an alternative path to notability. Such SNGs include WP:NACADEMIC, the guideline for academics and the like, which may be met through various academic or career accomplishments; and WP:GEOLAND, which for example states that any named geographical feature is notable if more than mere statistics exist. Note that an academic who does not pass WP:NACADEMIC may still be notable through the GNG.
  • Some SNGs override or replace the GNG. For poor new page patrollers, a commonly encountered such SNG is WP:NCORP, the notability standards for corporations and organizations, which I will explain below. In the example of WP:NEVENT, a complex list of criteria help determine whether an event is suitable for its own article. For example, under WP:NEVENT, murders are not notable solely on the basis of intense local coverage, or even national coverage, but if are covered broadly and continuously (WP:COVERAGE) and they have a lasting impact (WP:LASTING), then they probably deserve an article. If an event meets WP:GNG but not WP:NEVENT, that event does not merit its own article.
  • Some SNGs simply suggest that the GNG is likely met. These are subservient to the GNG. For example, WP:NSPORT provides criteria on whether a sportsperson is likely to be notable under the GNG, because there probably exist sources and coverage which allow the GNG to be met, but at an AfD, editors may realize that the subject does not meet the GNG and therefore should be deleted or redirected.
  • General reflections: This is the complexity of notability that makes me tremble, Jesus Christ. I know there is WP:OUTCOMES but... seriously. Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of words on SNGs, and each SNG subject subject to interpretation by various denominations. I think I will focus on WP:NCORP and let the others slowly dawn on me. For WP:NPOL, my understanding is that there is much higher bar for politicians to be covered as politicians, but that if they meet the GNG they still merit an article (that may still mention their political endeavors). Also, I'm going to take a pause here to see whether these are the kinds of responses you're looking for, if that's alright. Lmk if you'd rather I finish this whole section first. Ovinus (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Ovinus, I'm a little disappointed that you burned out so quickly, and haven't finished Pt. 1 of this 5 Pt exercise. We haven't even gotten into the live reviews. Keep in mind that NPP tutors are reading/discussing/explaining these same PAGs quite frequently, not to mention reviewing student summaries of them. I certainly don't want to force you into doing something you don't want to do. This tutorial is not simply about reciting what you see as straightforward PAGs; rather, it is about your perception of specific PAGs that are critical to the NPP process, summarized in your own words. NPP reviewers determine whether the work of others will be published or rejected, and that's a pretty important task that should not be taken lightly. If you need more time, that's fine - take your time as long as you intend to complete the course. If you're thinking NPP is not for you, then please just let me know. NPP is hard work, time-consuming, and not a task that's suited for everyone. Atsme 💬 📧 01:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: Thanks for calling me out on that; I truly want to be a good new page reviewer, and I know it is tedious but important work. But I'm worried I simply don't have the prerequisites down. Should I have more experience at AfD and seeing how notability works in practice? I was just surprised at the complexity of the SNGs, and I've never really applied them at AfD. So I started reading through them all—hence the burnout. Ovinus (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Ovinus - it's midnight here, and my brain needs to sleep. Keep up the good work, keep expressing your thoughts as you've been doing, work at a comfortable pace so you won't burn out, and don't hesitate to ask questions - that's why I'm here...to answer your questions, and present a few situations that will require critical thinking skills. I will also present new perspectives for you to mull over, as it will help you to better understand relevant WP:PAGs, including the nuances and ambiguities. I don't think you'll be disappointed when it's all said and done. We'll discuss more after sleep. Atsme 💬 📧 04:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies, frequently abbreviated WP:NCORP, is similar to GNG, but places a high emphasis on source quality. In particular, to count toward notability, the coverage of a company must be deep and from a secondary source entirely independent of the company. Even if there are a wealth of nonindependent sources—Forbes, for example, might contain several sponsored articles about a company—notability is not implied. Companies and organizations have a substantial interest in getting Wikipedia articles, which rank highly on source results and confer legitimacy or "importance". PR firms of various shades of shadiness will try to get an article up whether or not WP:NCORP is met, and whether or not they follow WP:COI editing guidelines.
  • For obvious cases, speedy deletion criterion WP:A7 applies (no credible claim of significance) unless the subject is an educational organization, in which case draftification is likely (?). WP:G11 (exclusively promotional) may also apply. If the article contains only material sourced to the company itself or to non-independent sources, but isn't entirely promotional, I would do a quick search to assess whether the company is definitely notable. If notability is borderline, or if the contributor has an apparent COI, I'd err on the side of caution and AfD it. (Note that "borderline" in this case simply means I could only find one significant and totally independent in-depth coverage of the subject. Realistically, with companies, that information can be quickly found on Google, and a deep search into, say, JSTor is probably unnecessary.) If the company is notable I'd NPOVify the article and pare it down to content not sourced directly from the company (besides generic information like date of founding, etc). But I'm not sure what I'd do if there was nothing left. Tag it? AfD it? I'd like to see what happens in practice. For articles on non-commercial organizations, I'd probably have a bit more leeway than on commercial organizations, but again, I'd like to know what happens in practice.
  • Non-notable individuals are also frequently encountered by new page patrollers. Again, WP:G11 and WP:A7 may apply. Concerns about source independence are similar to that for companies. Biographies without a single source concerning the subject should be WP:BLPPRODed.
  • General reflections: Identifying true source independence can be difficult, and in my opinion it is best to err on the side of caution. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otgonbayar Ershuu, I was a fledgling, not yet disillusioned by having seen so much cruft, and was too credulous to at least one of the sources that Vexatious brought up. It was the first time I saw how the line of independence can be easily blurred. Also, I do not understand why the educational organization exception exists for WP:A7, and I'm curious: what happens in practice when non-notable schools crop up in the NPP queue? Ovinus (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Ovinus - these types of articles can be tricky because some (and that "some" is growing) are written by PE/UPE. Some are cookie cutter articles, possibly even thrown together by Bots. Hopefully, by the time you read this, the AfD and article will still be available for you to study. Reviewers who don't spend the time necessary to make sure the sources support the material can be easily hoodwinked into believing it's legit, and not a promotional article. See my comment in the AfD, read the article, look at the cited sources, and you will come to realize the blatantly obvious promotion. Online publications (all of them, even the NYTimes, Forbes, etc.) will promote a company and its execs for $$. The company's PR department will write the material to be published so that it doesn't look like an add or promotion like it used to when everything was printed and such promotions were acknowledged. My comment in the AfD explains why it is marketing. You will learn to spot it over time, but don't be too concerned about it now - ask questions and discuss with colleagues if you're not sure. Atsme 💬 📧 21:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: I'm surprised even the NYT would publish that stuff. Aren't they required by US law to put some sort of disclosure, or are the articles beneath that threshold? It'd be cool to have automated sentiment analysis on company articles, or even something as straightforward as looking for keywords ("solutions", "raised over", "boasts") and a count of source diversity. Crude, but might quickly identify already-existing problematic articles, although I'd suspect most of them are already tagged. There's also this which I recently redirected, and I'm not sure about the notability of List of GSK plc products. Is there some sort of consensus on List of ... products] articles? Anyway, ECP protect all company articles? :P Ovinus (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Pubs walk the legal line - have staff attorneys - besides, writing articles that are promotional is neither illegal, nor regulated, especially when you use words like building & planning which tells us it's not finished. It's not deceptive trade, and if the NYTimes editor/author believes in the product, there's nothing that has to be disclosed. Anyway...you've got great ideas, Ovinus. Let's get you through this tutorial and on the job reviewing articles, and participating in our discussions at NPP. I'm in discussions now about our needs for automation in order to present something to the WMF Trustees. In fact, DannyS (one of our tech gurus) creates Bots for us based on our wishes/needs, such as this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DannyS712_bot_III/Redirects.json&diff=prev&oldid=1096938983 - not everything has to go through the WMF, but I think Danny used to be with WMF (and still may be). Atsme 💬 📧 00:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Ovinus See the last paragraph in the subsection WP:MULTSOURCES as it supports what I stated above relative to the nuances of WP:N, particularly historical subjects. Also keep context in mind when reading that paragraph (tech start-ups vs historically speaking). Modern technology did not exist in early America, and the oppression of people based on race and gender was global. IOW, the lack of RS was not unique to Bangladeshi women. See Oppression of women (redirected to Sexism, which I consider a poor choice.) Atsme 💬 📧 12:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources, often abbreviated WP:RS, are published sources from which information can be trusted for use in Wikipedia. In the interest of WP:Verifiability, a core policy, all Wikipedia sources must be published in some form. (Search insource:"pers. comm" for a laugh.) Source quality may be evaluated by looking at, among other aspects, the date of publication, amount of editorial oversight, and the author and publishing company. Source quality only correlates with, and does not imply, suitability for use in context: A weak source can be used for simple and uncontroversial claims, while a strong source that focuses on some technical topic probably shouldn't be used for popular culture. Medical claims must meet the stringent requirements of WP:MEDRS. Of particular interest to evaluating notability, sources should be inspected for independence alongside reliability. As we discussed, this independence is harder to establish for corporations and people, who have a strong interest in directly influencing publications in various newspapers.
  • When doing a WP:BEFORE search to establish or question notability, a Google search may immediately turn up reliable sources that prove notability. Great! And a lack of independent, reliable sources in a Google search, for topics like Internet culture, may be enough; it's unlikely that there will be nothing online discussing a famous meme, but significant coverage in subscription-only journals. This is not true for most topics, though. The Wikipedia Library may help in locating sources, giving access to old US newspapers and JSTOR. Google Books may also help, and foreign-language topics are especially tricky. See my research for WP:Articles for deletion/List of waterfalls in Iran, where I ultimately just used Google Translate to prove WP:LISTN, but it's important to note that outside the West--and especially in developing countries--often the only good sources that exist are newspapers and TV broadcasts. For very old topics, there may be reliable sources locked up in dusty and obscure books like the Scotichronicon. This ties into your point on WP:MULTSOURCES, which clarifies that some organizations will naturally receive less coverage than others, while still being notable. It's important to exercise discretion and be somewhat more lenient on historical, foreign-language, etc. topics. That being said, some reliable sources (plural) must be found regardless, since WP:V is king.
  • This is where it gets tricky, as we briefly discussed. Much of the purpose of the "supplementary"-type SNGs is to establish criteria which usually imply the existence of reliable sources, although they may be hard to find. It can even happen to companies, I think. Take Moodle, a pretty widely used piece of software (apparently) but which hasn't received much independent coverage on Google News. Yet, there have been plenty of journal articles on its effectiveness, some of which appear independent, e.g. [1] [2]. But there are also some clearly non-independent ones like [3]. (Even though Moodle is a piece of open-source software, WP:NCORP applies because it is operated by a company of the same name which has clearly had influence on the article. See [4] if your stomach is empty.) These independent journal articles probably count toward notability with WP:NCORP, and I think Moodle clears the bar.
  • General reflections: What's frustrating to me is that the onus is on everyone else to find sources and there are no consequences for a perfunctory WP:BEFORE search. For BLPs and still-operating corporations and organizations--okay, I'd rather err on the side of deletion. But for historical topics that may require heading off to the British Library to find sources on? There are few people with an axe to grind on Martin Evans (model engineer). I wish there were a method of "permanent draftification" so that people could be given time to find more sources, but I guess WP:REFUND kind of serves that purpose. Ovinus (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
  • I'd first use some intuition. Assuming the article isn't a plain hoax, would the encyclopedia be better off with this article? In some sense this relates to WP:NOT and is detached from any particular notability guideline. If a speedy deletion criterion applies, I'd use it. If the prose is suspicious, either by being brilliant or by being in a strange tone of voice, I'd perform a copyvio search. If the article is clearly a split from another article, I'd check the edit history and ensure that the appropriate policy for copying within Wikipedia has been followed. And finally, I'd look for AfDs with a similar name as the new article. Then, if the article hasn't been edited for some time, I'd start evaluating for notability and following the NPP flowchart. At each step, if I find something problematic I'd of course notify the user in question (unless they're clearly some random LTA, in which case I'd report to the appropriate noticeboard).
  • Pinging Atsme. Ovinus (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Well done, Ovinus - very well done!!! Apologies for my being a little tardy – the weekend got in the way. Please proceed at your own pace. I'm ok with shorter summaries if you so choose. I just need enough to let me know that you have a good grip on the respective PAGs in this tutorial, (as you demonstrated here). If you have any questions or concerns about a particular aspect of a policy/guideline, I'm happy to discuss. Atsme 💬 📧 17:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Passed Pt. 1 Atsme 💬 📧 17:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

  • A core principle of editing is to assume that others are also interested in improving the encyclopedia. An editing environment in which everyone has a battleground mentality and is hostile or even neutral to their fellow editors would... not work. Good-faith content-based disagreements are arguably beneficial, in that they stimulate rational discussion and therefore better quality content. Closely related is the principle to not "bite the newbies": When new editors make totally misguided edits, try to guide them along to a better place. Even if only 1% of them become productive editors, that's still 1%, not 0%.
  • NPP (similarly to AfC) has the Sisyphean task of guiding the newbies. Test pages and confusing or inappropriate articles should not be responded to with severe warnings, but gentle and descriptive talk page messages. Ideally, a personal comment would be attached to each, and I'd definitely attach personal comments for people who I think have potential. But realistically, templated messages are the tool of choice in 90% of cases. If a user has a history of deleted pages, more communication may be necessary. See User talk:AmericanEditor350#Please stop creating articles for an example.
  • Sometimes AGF falls short. It's fairly rare in non-DS areas in general editing, but is common with, say, attack BLPs or highly promotional articles written by associates of the subject. These should not be treated quite as gently; it's highly unlikely that someone whose first article is "BOB IS A CHILD PREDATOR", or "Wombat Firearms sells high-quality rifles ..." will become a productive editor. Yet caution is still required: Just because it's a company article written by a newbie doesn't mean it's not in good faith! See Talk:Hydro Flask#Contested deletion for an example. The subject is maybe notable but the editor was 100% not a Hydro Flask PR employee, and was indeed a helpful editor who I tried to advise (e.g., User talk:Mossypiglet#Some small advice). (I should note my understanding of NCORP was too lax at the time, so if I conducted a proper source assessment today I might conclude that hydroflasks are not notable. Intuition tells me it is, but it may be a phenomenon peculiar to the people I tend to be friends with.)
  • Pinging Atsme. Also, I somewhat enjoy writing these longer form responses because they make me reflect more, but if you would prefer shorter responses in the interest of time I can do that. Ovinus (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • No, no - please, not for my sake. I truly enjoy reading the responses because it keeps my mind open to varying perspectives and how different people interpret things in different ways. That's how we grow and improve. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable. My tutorial is the antithesis of a rigid, you must follow the rules style tutorial...it is designed to exercise one's critical thinking skills, with an openness to varying thought processes. Atsme 💬 📧 20:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's high visibility has consequences. Even in 2005, the Seigenthaler incident, an incidence of libel on a Wikipedia page, was enough to garner significant coverage and a strong reaction from the subject. Fast forward 17 years, and Wikipedia is now the top result for many search queries--including those for living people. Although defamation/libel laws in the US are fairly protective of free speech, and the Communications Decency Act probably protects the WMF and most editors from legal issues, there is a real risk of harming innocent people. Thus, Wikipedia editors must exercise extra caution when editing BLPs, as codified in policy, by sourcing controversial claims to high quality sources.
  • One easy corollary of BLP policy is that attack pages must be dealt with swiftly and without courtesy to the editor who creates them. A related policy is WP:BLPPROD, which, to ensure compliance with BLP policy, permits quick deletion of BLPs when no sources exist. In general, we must be conservative and remove controversial content rather than tagging it {{citation needed}}. For relatively mundane content like birthdays that is only poorly sourced, I typically just tag with {{better source needed}} if I can't find a good source.
  • Anyway, with regards to NPP work, BLP policy means we need to pay especial attention to the used sources, and, when giving the article a skim, looking at all controversial claims. It's also probably good to slap a {{BLP}} on there. If the article creator is a newbie, it's worth reminding them of BLP, regardless of how well they did--just a quick note like "thanks for making Jane Doe! For future reference, Wikipedia requires high-quality sourcing for biographies of living people" etc.
  • General reflections: At WP:Articles for deletion/Demi Rose, many of the sources cited in support of meeting GNG were not up to BLP standard. That's to be expected: The article subject is an influencer mostly known for posting racy selfies. But she did have enough coverage in RS that I considered (and consensus found) her to pass GNG. As one !voter noted, she has 19 million Instagram followers, and while that's not sufficient for notability, it's certainly suggestive.
  • Here I see an interesting case of Wikipedia's potential bias due to BLP policy. Celebrities borderline notable under current policy (see WP:Articles for deletion/Kristen Hancher for another case, much earlier in my time here) have a much bigger relative impact than do most living people, and are arguably "more notable" on that basis. I was chatting with my friend about these people and she knew about both (although not in much detail). Who is most interested in knowing about Kristen Hancher, about Demi Rose? Probably millennial and Gen Z women and teens! Who wants to know about cricket cruft and borderline notable pornographers? ... It's similar to Wikipedia's oft-criticized bias against, say, historically important women, a bias which defenders of Wikipedia usually retort with, "Wikipedia's bias reflects the sources' bias". I think it applies here too, but with a reliable inserted in there.
  • Pinging Atsme. Ovinus (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Paid contributions without proper disclosure (UPE) are in violation of the WMF's terms of use. And even if someone is not paid, perhaps a bored employee or hapless intern, COI edits compromise the neutrality of the encyclopedia. Another fairly common form of COI is article subjects editing themselves. Some COI edits are trivial to detect, hence WP:G11 and the like. Others are more subtle, especially the edits of COI rings hired by companies to fluff up their Wikipedia articles.
  • For NPP work, when an article has serious potential for COI editing, the main contributor and their contributions should be examined. Behavior I've seen: Adding a lot of mentions to a company or person in tangentially related articles, some "fixed typo"-type edits preceding the company or person article, and "defluffing" edits to other company articles. I think this last one is somewhat clever--if you make yourself appear as someone who enjoys removing cruft from company articles, then you're slightly less suspicious writing about your own company. The username itself may also give clues, and some names violate the username policy and should be reported. If a COI is suspected, the user should be sternly notified and the article should be tagged (possibly with a G11 or A7, and certainly with a paid contribution tag). If a COI is confirmed, put it on the talk page.
  • Question: Should I mark these articles as reviewed, though?
  • General reflections: A recent COI infestation I tried to help with surrounds the software company JetBrains. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppCode and Talk:JetBrains. More recently, the COI-conflicted editors are using the talk page in a way that I think is appropriate and genuinely improves the article; I will try to work with them accordingly. I admit have much contempt for COI editors and enjoy destroying their creations... I have tried rewriting such articles in the past, e.g. Milton Hershey School, which was originally this. Yet I think I may have gone too far in the opposite direction by putting too much info on school controversies. Maybe BLP applies, since corporations are people too. Ovinus (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The English Wikipedia must strictly follow US copyright law, and contributed text must be released under a compatible free license (for example, CC BY-SA NC is not sufficient). Images and other files must follow the same rules unless uploaded under the fair use policy, which is fairly restrictive.
  • NPP reviewers, especially when encountering an article that is unusually well-written or in a strange tone, should check for copyright violations. Excessively long quotes, even if properly attributed, also may be copyright violations. If a copyright violation is found from the first revision, the page should be CSDed, but I'm not sure what you'd do when the first edit doesn't have a copyvio. Still CSD it? Anyway, if the article is substantially copied from a PD or freely licensed source, but not cited inline, there is a template for that (I forget what it's called) and it's not a major problem, although the contributor should be reminded to source it next time. Ovinus (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this one is fairly obvious. Don't create hoaxes, even for the purpose of testing anti-hoax measures. It severely damages Wikipedia's credibility, and sophisticated hoaxes are known to slip through the cracks--although one of NPP's goals is to make that unlikely! Anyway, extremely obvious hoaxes should be CSDed, while less obvious hoaxes should be PRODed and suspected hoaxes should be tagged with {{hoax}}. As an example of a not particularly obvious hoax, [5] was declined to be speedy deleted and taken to AfD. Now, I'm not sure how well I'd be able to detect hoaxes in practice, especially when all the cited sources are offline. Ovinus (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY - The Heat Is On couldn't have come at a more opportune time! In much the same way we verify that an article is not a hoax, we should verify that it is a hoax. It's hell proving a negative, and why we must exercise caution before making any final decisions to include it on a hoax list, but I like your suggestion: {{R from possible hoax}}. ^_^ Atsme 💬 📧 17:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It is pretty interesting, and propitious indeed--a lesson for us both. I'm genuinely curious as to what % of articles are completely bogus. Ovinus (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY My guess is few based on percentages. Keep in mind that there are many television programs, specials and short run series dating back to the 80s-90s (and before) that are still not archived or that have been lost by the networks or local/regional tv stations, especially if the acquisition formats were the old dinosaur 3/4" & Beta tapes. Film stood a better chance of being preserved but storage was a major issue for all of those big bulky formats. Storing paperwork was also an issue, which is why I wasn't too hasty to declare The Heat Is On a blatant hoax. Also keep in mind that back in those days, we didn't have the same type of media coverage we have today with the internet, so unless you're looking in the Entertainment/TV guide section of local newspapers, and in the few national magazines of that era, it's unlikely you're going to find much. That doesn't necessarily mean the program wasn't notable, or didn't exist. Read this article which provides a timeline of broadcast history so you can see things from a slightly different perspective about these older programs and why multiple sources may not apply to their notability, but their historical significance does. IOW, don't overlook the nuances. Atsme 💬 📧 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Attack pages are pages which exist mostly to attack the subject, frequently a BLP. Attack pages are subject to speedy deletion in any namespace and should be tagged {{db-attack}} for an admin to review. I'm not sure how conservative we're supposed to be on it, though. Is it like G1 gibberish where we take a restrictive definition, or do we err on the side of tagging it? For example, what if there's a page with some neutral introduction, and then a massive and undue criticism section? Ovinus (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Ovinus, my suggestion would be to remove obvious offensive material if it is unsourced or unreliably sourced, and if it's the whole article, then db-attack is the way to go. If it's just a small section that's questionable, tag that section with an applicable tag. If it's just a sentence or two in the lead, or elsewhere in the body text, inline tag it. Whatever you do, don't get into an edit war over it. Atsme 💬 📧 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)

This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading

  • Discussions with creators of new pages
  • Discussions should be unwaveringly civil; competent writers are one of Wikipedia's greatest assets. Therefore, biting a new editor by, say, immediately tagging their articles for deletion, even in the interest of expediency, may drive them away. This isn't an article creation per se, but one of my first edits was a random requested move for a high school; the person who closed the discussion was polite and left a welcome template on my talk page. If he were more aggressive about it, I probably would have left. Depending on their current level of competence, some editors may need more or less guidance. The Teahouse is a reasonable starting place and is well-watched. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY
  • Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss
  • As I noted above somewhere, there are a lot of new pages, and thus it's not really feasible to type out a personal response for every page. Therefore, a variety of templates exist to notify page creators. For deletions, which must be supplemented with a notification to the creator, Twinkle automates the process quite nicely. Clearly promotional usernames should be reported to WP:UAA and not be simultaneously discussed on the user's talk. COIs should be responded to manually, with templates like {{uw-paid1}}, and it's always nice to thank or congratulate new editors. Another case would be if an examination of the editor's previous contributions are similarly troublesome. For copyright violations especially, past contributions should be scrutinized. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY
  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
  • Civility, and outside of blatant cases, assuming good faith, are important. For newer editors I'd avoid the dreaded three letter acronyms and direct them to the Teahouse. Clarity and knowledge... hm. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I should put myself in the shoes of the new editor and ask myself: How will they understand (or perhaps not understand) what I'm telling them? I'd also be careful to not indiscriminately invoke "experience"; it's mildly bitey to call them inexperienced but then not say how they can gain experience. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY
  • Wikilove/positive comments
  • This is straightforward enough; I'd give some Wikilove to editors who are doing decent work. I'm not sure what the threshold of "decent" is; it'll probably depend on my mood. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY
  • Warning templates are most useful in the cases of attack pages and suspected COI, and should be used when good faith is severely in doubt. I'd use them judiciously because the level-two ones can be intimidating. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Random question: Why does {{Stop NPP}} exist? Isn't NPP restricted to people with a reasonable amount of experience? Also Atsme Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • See Template:Stop NPP/doc - ...it's used to advise users performing new pages patrol improperly and with insufficient experience, to please stop doing so. Anybody can tag a new article in mainspace, and sometimes you'll see a small group of new editors checking each other's articles, or something along that line. There are also times when the user right is granted to an editor who managed to convince an admin they are capable of doing the job when they're not.
  •  Passed Pt. 3 Atsme 💬 📧 03:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

  • AfD is where the fate of articles is decided by the community. It is preferred for articles where deletion might be slightly contentious (i.e., not deserving a PROD or a CSD). AfDs are open for at least seven days (unless the result would be obvious) and may be extended to 21 days. The process can be a little convoluted.
  • checkY Convoluted is an understatement. Recommended reading: User talk:Atsme#Woke but particularly this brilliantly written exposé, The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta. I simply call it "the hegemony of the asshole consensus". While not always an issue, the times that it is can be quite frustrating, be it an AfD or an RfC. As you are already aware, admins tend to be reluctant to take action on a speedy, thereby forcing us to use AfD. I have requested stats to see how many rejected CSDs have gone to AfD and were deleted vs redirected/merged/kept. I'm also of the mind that the position assumed by admins may have developed before we Kudpung established the program we have now, and it was easy to acquire the rights...but it is what it is. Atsme 💬 📧 13:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • THE HEGEMONY OF THE ASSHOLE CONSENSUS. LOL. Great. There are a few parts of that article I disagree with—maybe because I haven't been here long enough to become cynical—but the main thrust is quite accurate. Whoever has enough zeal and time on their hands (and perhaps enough social capital) will get their way. Ovinus (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Before nominating an article for deletion, an editor should check whether CSD, PROD and/or BLPPROD are appropriate. AfD is fairly backlogged and it's best to not send gobs of articles there (indeed, there's an ArbCom case about it right now). If the main concern is notability, we then conduct a search for sources. It's unrealistic to conduct a very thorough search, especially for articles where offline sources are likely to have significant coverage, but at least a search through google news, google books, and probably TWL should be conducted. If the article should be deleted for WP:NOT concerns, WP:POVFORK, etc., then it should be assessed whether the article can simply be improved through editing. If so, then the article can be tagged or worked on immediately—that's always best!
  • checkY We should approach each article with our first thoughts being to keep, and tag if necessary. The amount of extra work that is required to keep it is entirely dependent on the amount of time a patroller has to invest. If applicable, WP:Draftify is a better option than AfD in situations of noncompliant MOS, a serious lack of inline citations and other relative issues that fail GNG, V and/or NOR (excluding hoaxes). I don't know how far my proposal to WMF will succeed, but it does propose using draftified articles as training tools for Edit-a-thons hosted by universities, and other academic groups. Atsme 💬 📧 13:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "We should approach each article with our first thoughts being to keep" I like that and will keep that in mind. Draft articles as training tools is actually a cute idea; find drafts which are borderline, but which provide a skeleton for them dress up. Ovinus (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Ovinus - you're almost done!! Just wanted to let you know that I'm ok, and look forward to you wrapping up the menial portions of this training exercise so we can do some live NPP reviews, and get you the user rights. We need you at NPP. Atsme 💬 📧 13:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Haha, okay. I didn't really address soft deletion so I'll do that now, but otherwise sounds good and we can move to live reviews. I'm a bit busy over the next few weeks in real life, but I'm certainly free after 6 pm PST, so if you give me articles within a few hours of that then it should work smoothly. Ovinus (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Soft deletion is used when a deletion discussion hasn't received enough comments to constitute a consensus. That may happen because people think the result is obvious, or simply don't care for that type of article, etc. A soft deleted article may be restored on request by any editor in good standing, for example if they have found some sources and want to expand it. Ovinus (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

  • Articles which have substantial problems, but not enough for a PROD or AfD to be appropriate and which are not eligible for speedy deletion (which should take precedence), may be tagged for improvement. The point of tagging articles, sections or assertions is to alert other editors to a problem. (In my opinion, it also makes sure the reader has some doubt after they see the [citation needed], etc.) Articles may be tagged for notability concerns, say if you feel they are borderline and you couldn't find source, but you think there might be hard-to-access sources. Tags should be used judiciously and if I have the energy, I should improve the article. If the problems are more severe, for example poor sourcing on a BLP, material may be excised and the creator gently notified of relevant policies and guidelines. Over-tagging articles is annoying to everyone; if an article has pervasive, say, sourcing concerns, section- or article-level templates like {{Sources}} should be used. Ovinus (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY
  • Categorizing articles helps with many things, like better search functionality and collecting data for Wikidata. Alas, I'm not super familiar with category guidelines... some mumbo jumbo about diffusing and nondiffusing categories... I'd probably just tag it with basic stuff like Category:1950 deaths, Category:Extinct species, and perhaps some gnome will come around and make it better or more specific. Ovinus (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise

Before you begin, read the Notability in a nutshell banner at the top of this page, study it and think hard about the message it's sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, don't hesitate to take action as you would normally do as a bona fide patroller.

I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. The articles I've chosen are unreviewed, but it is possible they will have been reviewed by the time you get to them, so try not to wait too long after I've added them. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary.

Ovinus - here ya go!! Atsme 💬 📧 13:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

1. Carl Carlson

  • This looks straightforward; it was redirected to [6] and then, after that was redirected to [7], the present redirect formed (after fixing the double redirect). It received a test edit, which was quickly reverted but put it in the queue anyway. So, I'd mark it as reviewed and move on. Ovinus (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

2. Fightback

3. Taimiao

  • Cross-wiki attribution is okay; I think it follows WP:CWW by providing the link. I also put {{Translated page}} on the talk. The article was already appropriately tagged for lack of references. I can read some Mandarin and it's definitely not a hoax or otherwise misguided, as the corresponding Baidu article has ("太庙是中国古代皇帝的宗庙" – Taimiao are ancient Chinese emperors' ancestral temples.". I'd mark it as reviewed and move on. Ovinus (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

4. Josh Stanley

  • I suspect a COI and would not mark it as reviewed. The image is unusually... er, artsy, and famous people don't tend to release freely licensed images of themselves. Indeed, it appears to be a copyvio or at least not properly released; see [8]. Also note how User:Textwriter 1, the uploader of that image, immediately started editing the article after it was created by another user. I have removed the image from the article and tagged it on Commons for deletion. The article is not WP:G11, though.
  • I now checked the user talk, and two other people have raised similar concerns. I think I would be similar: ask for clarification on COI, and if there is no convincing response after a week, escalate by sending to WP:COIN. Ovinus (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

5. Distortions Unlimited

Discussion

Evaluation

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.

Ovinus is an advanced editor, if not in years of experience on WP, he is clearly advanced in his reviewing ability and critical thinking skills. All he needs now is for an admin to grant him the user rights so he can get to work patrolling!! Barkeep49 - we really need Ovinus at NPP. If you get a break, he has applied for the rights. Thank you for your incredible multitasking ability. I think you've surpassed the skills of most parents with 5 yo quadruplets. Atsme 💬 📧 13:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, Ovinus! If you know an admin who is familiar with your work, you can get the rights granted readily or apply at NPP. Please link to this training page to confirm that you passed NPPSCHOOL. Atsme 💬 📧 18:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

:) Thank you!! It was a pleasure to be under your tutelage, and I look forward to seeing you around at NPP and other places. Ovinus (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2022 (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:Headbomb/unreliable - another useful tool that grades sources using highlight colors
  • 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.
  • User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool

Userbox

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

This User went through the rigors of WP:NPP school and graduated!!


invalid request by blocked user 11-08-2022
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


NPP Training

Hi Atsme,

Please, I am interested in the NPP training. I believe you are super busy. I'm a serious learner and creative. I won't waste your time. Please, grant me the opportunity to learn from you.

Best,

Beston Beston77 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

MaxnaCarta

checkY Passed August 29, 2022
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Notability in a nutshell

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.



Welcome New Trainee!

Instructions: MaxnaCarta, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider: does not apply to you per your comment on my UTP. ;-)

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.

Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page.

Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time, in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.

Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace.

It may seem overwhelming 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 cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Just in case my first ping didn't go through, MaxnaCarta, here it is again. Atsme 💬 📧 00:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme I never got the first ping! I assumed you may have other stuff on. Thanks! Ready to start. Cheers. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Atsme, I have read all the content. Cheers! MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Good job, MaxnaCarta!! You may begin the course. Once you have completed Part 1, ping me so I can review it, and proceed to Part 2, and so forth throughout this exercise. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 11:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

Wikipedia covers notable topics. They need to have gained significant attention by reliable and independent sources to determine whether a topic warrants its own article.

Articles are presumed to be notable if it meets the general notability guideline or a specific notability guideline as details below. However, the article must not violate WP:NOT. As an example, we would not include the resume of a notable person, or an advertisement for the next iPhone. Content must still be appropriate for Wikipedia, regardless of notability.

To meet the general notability guideline, significant coverage in appropriate sources must be shown. Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. For example, if for some reason an individual running a company was mentioned in the media. However, the coverage was about the company. There is a mere mention of the CEO's name such as "Today, ABC Pty Ltd was down 5% on the stock exchange, and the CEO John Smith delivered the news". This is not significant coverage because it is a mere mention of the CEO's name. So this would probably not count towards notability, and if only such brief mentions were available, then there is insufficient sourcing to write a full article. Sources need to be reliable (discussed below), and they need to be secondary. IE, a company press release is not secondary. Neither is a paid advertisement in the New York Times, or a regurgitation of the company website on a Forbes online business profile.

Notability does not usually apply to content within an article. As an example, I created the article Andrew Charlton. He needed to be notable as the subject. However his wife is allowed to be mentioned in the article despite having no notability (although any contentious claims need a source per WP:BLP). Lists too do not usually have a notability guideline - there is a separate criteria for this and editors may come to the consensus that notability is required. Although, if everything within the list meets GNG, this is a good indicator the list is appropriate for inclusion.

The content of an article does not determine notability. My cat, as gorgeous as she is, could have a very lengthy article written about her background, her colour, her cat trophies. Unfortunately for her, she has never been covered by significant, independent, reliable coverage. She does not meet GNG. Therefore regardless of article content length, quality, or editing, notability is not met and no improvement will help the article meet GNG. Likewise, poor quality articles that are notable still can be included. Last - sources merely need to exist. If someone can show the sourcing is available, that's all that matters. While I personally try to clean up articles with found sources, it is not necessary to meet GNG. All three of these issues are very common at AFD and I am sure this is an issue for NP patrollers too.

  • checkY You covered the guideline well, BUT...please read the notice at the top of this page again because your cat may very well have earned mention or even a page in WP. ;-) There are conflicting views about notability, which typically causes articles to end up at AfD. FYI, there was a recent arbcom case you should probably review. I believe in following our guidelines while keeping the nuances in mind, as well as WP:IAR. The very heart of WP is the sum of all knowledge. Article creation is part of that equation as is the multitude of topics that people are seeking to learn more about. For example, more than a few people love cats, show cats, are fascinated by cats, etc. Why would they not want to learn about a cat that has won trophies? The catch here is the level of notability based in part on the significance of the trophies, such as a Best in Show recognition at the CFA International Cat Show. There may be stackable accomplishments that have received some coverage somewhere - multiple sources can be as few as 3 if the topic itself is noteworthy. A few more examples: (a) an academic can be notable and have little coverage; (b) a notable person may have historic significance but with limited coverage in news clips, and still be worthy of being noted; and (c) there are plenty of notable women throughout history who lack coverage, which is one of the voids that Women In Red have been filling. Atsme 💬 📧 16:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Gotcha! The arbcom matter was interesting to read. I participate often at AFD, and I enjoy it. I certainly have noticed some odd things about the area. There is bad ratio of nominations compared to participants - and sometimes users rapidly nominate. It was interesting to see the final arbitration ruling. I do think there are some people here that take some things too seriously, or want to argue a point to the ends of the earth. I try and avoid any drama. About the cat - totally understand what you mean. I just meant to acknowledge the fact that some people seem to think notability = importance is all, or that a quality article = notability. The historically significant but lacking coverage is an interesting one indeed. There should always be scope for flexibility in those sorts of matters, for sure! We are creating an encyclopedia so not everyone or everything suitable for inclusion will have a front page in the NYT. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a specific subject that has its own notability guideline or SNG. These are useful for some subjects that may not necessarily meet GNG. A good example is WP:NACADEMIC. Let us assume there is some sort of prize for "most outstanding law professor in the USA" and the award is made by Harvard Law School. This is a highly prestigious academic award at the national level. The recipient may then meet criteria 2 of NACADEMIC. However, to warrant a stand alone article there would still need to be reliable sources substantiating the criteria. Although, significant coverage is not necessarily required per GNG. However, WP:V must still be met. Merely meeting the criteria of an SNG is not defacto a guarantee of a stand alone article being appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia.

  • checkY Another tricky one, and it sorta corroborates what I stated above. There is some debate about SNG and when it should come into play. It basically comprises exceptions to the rule which are likely to be challenged on a case by case basis. For example, in sports, we are no longer creating standalone articles for players who simply qualified and showed-up on the roster for a major game – but you already get that part. As for academics, being the chair of and/or getting a big money grant for their department is notable. OTH, I doubt editors who graduated from Rice University, OSU or even Yale would consider a Harvard award notable, even though you and I do. ^_^ Atsme 💬 📧 17:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Good old NCORP. This SNG is incredibly important to NPP work because of the attempts by paid or COI editors to create an article about a business they own, are employed by, or got paid by to write an article on. Many such companies do not meet NCORP which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. If no reliable third party has covered the company or organisation, Wikipedia generally cannot either. No matter how successful, how important, or what type of organisation it may be - it needs to be notable. A tiny cafe that win's a world record and is covered significantly may meet NCORP. A local private school that educated the Queen of the UK is unlikely to meet NCORP without sigcov.

Sigcov in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent is the primary criteria. NCORP is similar to GNG - however with an emphasis on quality. Companies can tend to find themselves covered by great sources in a way that does not warrant an article. A blog in Forbes is not independent. Coverage needs to be of sufficient depth. Routine statements about its share price, its existence, etc does not meet NCORP.

MaxnaCarta, did you overlook this one? Atsme 💬 📧 17:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?

I'd give the article a quick read. I have practiced NPP reviewing before deciding to sign up for NPP School. I'd click on an article and see what the feel of it is. I follow the flow chart for NPP reviewing. Most articles will immediately stand out as ones that either have significant barriers to being marked as approved, or they will not. IE: an article named XYZ Pty Limited with content that appears copy/pasted from a website is a clear CSD on copyright grounds or possibly advertising.

  • checkY Good approach. The curation tool will help because it provides information about the article, including copyvio potential, article history, if it was ever deleted, if the creator was blocked, etc. The tool is not perfect yet, but we're working on it. Atsme 💬 📧 17:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme I was still going! That’s why I didn’t ping you yet. But thanks for marking me so far! Will keep going tonight. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Reliability means a source that we can rely on to verify the content of an article and judgement needs to be made on whether a source is reliable. This can be easy - a self-published blog is generally not a reliable source unless the author is a credible expert. ie: if a professor of law at Harvard has a law blog, this may be reliable. Also, if Kim Kardashian had a blog, then this may be reliable to use in some situations - keeping in mind the need to be independent. However if she states in a blog she has moved to Greenland, this is reliable. Whereas a twitter post by some unknown person is not. News organisations that are reputable typically can be a reliable source. However this again needs to be judged carefully. An article from Fox News noting Joe Biden has arrived in a particular country at a time and date is a reliable source for that fact. An opinion piece from the same source about his political performance may not be reliable. I already use the list of perennial sources as voted on by the community to judge some sources, especially where I am not familiar with the source. My favorite sources are scholarly journal articles, I consider these the gold standard because they have been peer reviewed. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme part 1 all done, moving on to part 2 :) MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • checkYYou have the gist of RS but keep in mind that bias is not a reason to declare a source unreliable, and neither is having a different political slant from our own. As we have since learned, sources that were once considered unreliable are the ones that have since been proven to be reliable all along, and the ones we once trusted were proven to be unreliable. So what is the safest way to handle it? Put frankly, use intext attribution to CYA. And be aware that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and so does WP:RSAGE. Another thought for you to ponder: a research or study article, or even a review in a reputable journal may not be reliable for the inclusion of certain material. See this example, and think about what that tells us relative to verifiability and the reliability of a source.
    WP:BURDEN states: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3] Now read footnote 3: Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back. If a cited source in a WP article makes an exceptional claim in the body of their own article that is not supported in the source they cited, and if that same material is contradicted or disputed by other RS, or considered a fringe view, then the material should be removed from WP per BURDEN or ONUS. Also see the following to get an idea of the seriousness of bullshit information in our articles and how important our job is as NPP reviewers: this Guardian article, and this one about fake Russian history.
  •  Passed Pt. 1 Atsme 💬 📧 16:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

Wikipedia has fundamental principles summarised in what are referred to as the “Five Pillars”. The fourth pillar is that Wikipedia editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Amongst other elements, this pillar involves assuming good faith. Assuming good faith is a very important part of being an editor. It essentially means that unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, editors must assume anyone working on Wikipedia is trying to help the project, not harming.

Good faith edits are those that are made with the intention of helping Wikipedia. It is possible, and common, particularly for newcomers, to make good faith edits that harm Wikipedia. Mistakes are not just allowed, but expected, especially from newcomers.

  • checkY

This is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia. It essentially means that articles about living people need to have great care and attention paid to ensure material added is verifiable, neutral, and well sourced. Biographies of living people have the potential to cause serious reputational damage to the subject, and Wikipedia if they are not accurate and neutral.

For this reason, we must ensure such articles are written in a neutral tone, omitting contentious labels or ambiguities. The article needs to be balanced and claims cited by reliable sources. It is important that any contentious person about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced is removed. Sources must meet verifiability standards as discussed above in order to remain evidence of a claim made.

With over a million articles about living persons, we must ensure material that defames a subject or is otherwise inappropriate is removed.

  • checkY

This relates to contributing to Wikipedia about oneself, family, friends, clients, employers, or any other subject with which you have some sort of relationship or involvement that can be considered a conflict of interest.

  • checkY

The copyright policy is an incredibly important policy. Copyright law protects intellectual property, including certain writings and images. Ironically, it is because Wikipedia is not copyrighted and the particular licence we grant for use of our work that makes copyright even more important to follow.

Wikipedia content is created under a Creative Commons Licence which (with some minor strings attached like attribution) means that Wikipedia is free for anyone to use for almost any purpose. When editors contribute content to Wikipedia, they maintain copyright over their work but they licence it to Wikipedia under a CC licence.

Because we grant such a broad right for use of our content, we must ensure the content we grant licence for is our original creation, and that any use of content protected by a third party copyright is appropriately licensed. This can include a CC licence similar to Wikipedia, and to ensure the licence is compatible, there is a list to check within the policy. Alternatively, fair use may apply.

The copyright policy on Wikipedia is often stricter than other situations. In academic writing, in which I hold much experience, paraphrasing and quoting copyrighted material is governed primarily by plagiarism policies – provided the material is properly cited to avoid presenting the work of others as ones own, this is acceptable. I thought a similar standard applied here at Wikipedia, and after incorporating a quote into an article through wikivoice and citing it, this triggered a copyright strike on the article. I now take care to ensure I do not do such things. Lots of new editors may similarly violate the copyright policy in good faith, as it is quite strict.

As a NPP I will need to develop an eye for the most blatant copyright violations – copy/paste material. This may warrant removal, rev-del, copyright warning on a talk page, or escalation to administrators or a combination of these depending on context. Blatant, irreparable copyright violations (such as an entire article being copyrighted content with no clean version) may warrant a CSD tag.

  • checkY

Hoaxes are deceptive articles, they consist of information that is not true, such as an invented historical figure. It is an obscure and sometimes difficult to detect form of vandalism. Material included on Wikipedia needs to have a verifiable source. Unsourced claims must be proven true by the contributor if challenged. If I find a suspected hoax article, I can mark it as such. However hoaxes are generally not candidates for a CSD tag – only after a thorough investigation where the hoax is blatant should a CSD tag be applied.

  • checkY

Attack pages are those which serve no purpose other than to attack its subject with threats or disparagement. Where the case is certain to be an attack page, it can be nominated for speedy deletion. These pages violate one of our five pillars - Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. So, if the article is of a notable subject we must restore a neutral version where possible, alternatively the page can be deleted and a neutral stub created.

Communications (Pt. 3)

This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading Atsme all done :) <–MaxnaCarta, pings don't work without your sig. Atsme 💬 📧 10:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You'd think I could remember to sign my damn post hey? Thanks Atsme. Also, wow. I just saw on your talk page that editor who you mentored as a result condition of their unblock, and kind of went down the rabbit hole of reading that interaction. I just wanna say thank you for continuing to be such a kind and patient editor, and taking on the newbies and "at risk" editors. It must be very disappointing to try and help people and then have timewasters or those who seek help then refuse to act on it time and time again chip away at your patience. I'm loving your coaching and appreciate it, you, and your use of cute emoji that I regretfully and to my immortal shame would not know how to use myself. (insert laughing emoji here). MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, MC. I am inherently a friendly optimist, often to my detriment, which is why we now have Atsme's law. I just unwatched N1TH's TP after reading his last comment.m( A few years ago, I agreed to mentor a young man whose user name was SNAAAAKE!!. He was a brilliant writer in the Arthurian legends topic area, a brilliant photographer, and his involvement in cosplay was at pro-level but he had other issues I'm not at liberty to discuss. He was actually doing well but the baggage he carried over from WP:GamerGate eventually did him in. See progress, then jump down to where it all started going to hell in a handbasket. As you read and scroll down, you will see that other kind-hearted editors jumped in to help. It was a truly sad outcome because he had so much potential. Anyway...life goes on and the NPP backlog is climbing, so let's get you graduated! Atsme 💬 📧 11:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Sigh. Just a minute of reading that - wow lol. I take my editing seriously, but when people flare up or double down I just walk away. There is an endless amount of work to do here. I am not going to waste time fighting people over trivial nonsense. Also, when I am wrong, it is just SO much easier to admit it, and not out of some sort of nobility - I just cannot be bothered arguing over nothing.
OK, back to getting this done! At this rate, I will graduate NPP quicker than CVUA - I am stuck finding three more people to report to AIV before I graduate there. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh and btw @Atsme your photography is UH-MAZE-ING. Just took a look at your work, outstanding! MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
●^_^● Thank you! Atsme 💬 📧 12:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussions with creators of new pages

Good communication is required when talking to creators. Different editors have different skills and motivations, and having one quality is not necessarily more important than the other. A highly motivated editor creating articles with copyright violations causes harm to the project. So too however does a highly skilled paid editor creating well-disguised vanity articles that look and read well, but are promotional in nature or of a subject that does not need notability standards. Still, it is important to assume good faith.

  • checkY Nice. Quick reminder: while NPRs are not obligated to tutor new editors, it helps to direct them to the proper venues to seek help, such as the Teahouse.
  • Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

In NPP, most notifications will be automated. Low quality, high volume articles like copyright violations, advertising, articles about clearly non-notable topics - automated Twinkle notifications their article has been tagged/nommed for deletion are sufficient. However where a good faith editor requests feedback on a patrol, leaving some manual feedback is important. Also, tagging an article does not notify the creator - however a friendly note on their talk page may help them fix the issue quickly.

  • checkY Excellent!
  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

It is always important to assume good faith. While there are no exceptions to speaking nicely with editors, it is especially important with newcomers. I still remember the first few edits I made attracting attention from patrollers, and their professionalism helped guide me into ensuring future edits did not fall foul of policies. So, patience is required, and patrollers should be ready to demonstrate a deep understanding of policies and explain their actions if questioned by a good faith editor. This should be done in a way that a new and inexperienced user can understand. Conversely, if challenging the creation of an experienced editor, one should ensure their knowledge on the relevant policy is accurate and up to date.

  • checkY Nicely stated. I like and appreciate your approach because it is such an important part of maintaining a collegial environment, which serves as a net positive for the project.
  • Wikilove/positive comments

Not much to say here. If someone does something nice, leave a cookie/fruit/whatever. If someone does something good, leave the appropriate barnstar. I regularly leave Wikilove, why not? Feel the love!

Warning templates are sometimes useful, sometimes mandatory. Sometimes they are helpful, sometimes they cause more issues than they solve.

In terms of usefulness, templates can be essential in helping new an inexperienced users learn policies. We do not have the time to write custom educational messages on every new editors page. Editors making problematic contributions can often be educated by an appropriate template. As an example, where there are reasonable grounds for paid editing, adding a paid editing template can educate the user. When issued progressively up to a level 4, they serve as evidence to a blocking administrator the user has had fair warning and it is mandatory to warn a user before reporting them to AIV. Templates should be used according to level, and usually progress from Level 1 to Level 4, but not always. Templates are usually helpful because they aid experienced users and admins see the history of troublemakers. Conversely, they can also rub good faith editors the wrong way. I would never intentionally template an experienced user with a good track record without having a conversation first.

  • checkY Good response! I personally dislike templates, but have occasionally used stop when dealing with egregious behavior.
  •  Passed Pt. 3 - all checkYs above and this comment are included in my sig here. Atsme 💬 📧 10:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

Atsme all done MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

AFD is one of my favourite activities on Wikipedia. Where a CSD or PROD nomination is inappropriate, an article must be sent to this Wikispace for discussion. AFD nominations will be a core part of my NPP duties. When an article has passed the rest of the flowchart of NPP, the final step is to assess whether to mark it as reviewed or send to AFD. There are countless reasons for sending an article to nomination, and the most common reason is notability. There is so much to write about AFD I will summarise:

  • Do a BEFORE check as below
  • Ensure creator of article is notified, can be a good courtesy to notify significant contributors to the article also
  • No canvassing for votes
  • AFD is a sock puppet fly trap - watch for SP's and NEVER try to stack votes yourself to aid in getting the article deleted, or its goodbye to Wikipedia perhaps forever. That said, AGF and do not accuse anyone of SP without strong evidence. SP's will QUACK.
  • AFD is not a vote. It's a discussion. Just "voting keep/delete" while not a breach of guidelines is unhelpful to closers - as it is not a vote, discussions at AFD need to be based on policy.
  • This rule is unofficial, but it is sort of de rigour - we silently follow the Briginshaw principle. The more that is at stake, generally the evidence needs to be more probative. By that, I mean the more high in quality in article, the more sourcing it has, the more "gray" of an area, the stronger ones argument should be. By this I mean that some AFDs are evident in their outcome very quickly. Nominations on strong nominations by trusted editors need less explanation, this is an example (though I need to be prepared to re-examine if sources come to light). Discussions that are or have the potential to become controversial require editors to exercise good judgement and demonstrate a strong policy based rationale for their submission. An example is this discussion, which given it had a previous nomination, I knew could end up in deletion review - so I paid extra attention to my answer.
  • Other rules: AGF, be nice, avoid participating in COI discussion without disclosing (but best to avoid altogether), do not dig in and treat AFD like a battleground, competency is required before deciding to close, do not be a jerk, do not nominate willy nilly, do not flog a dead horse, move on when needed, etc.
  • Sources only need to exist, they do not need to be included in the article to warrant inclusion. However, I consider it best practice to add sources into an article if I am voting Keep.
  • Your thoughts
  • My thoughts are: why is this nominated? There is so much crap to get rid of, so many vanity puff pieces, so much paid editing of non-notable companies. My initial thoughts without any examination of detail is the nomination is a waste of time. It isn’t an article that’s worth doing a before check on to nominate for deletion. For me personally - it doesn’t pass the “we cannot and will never stop all non-notable articles from being included on Wikipedia so let’s get rid of the worst of the worst before worrying about something that may possibly be not quite worth considering thinking about keeping”…
however if I was to vote on that article it would be keep AFD is not clean up and if I were the nominator, given the evidence provided, I’d be speedy keeping. Appropriate sources have been provided and so the debate is now dead and should be closed early by an administrator per SNOW. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
MaxnaCarta, you got it right for the most part, but the critical thinking areas are what I want you to take away from that discussion. Yes, the nom should not have first prodded those 10+/- articles, (and an admin stopped him from prodding-nomming 8 more). When the prod was removed, those articles were nommed individually rather than as a group at AfD (which is what would happen in situations of a justified AfD per WP:DP, so familiarize yourself with that policy. NPP reviewers should not approach articles in the manner that was exhibited in that example (not to mention those articles were 10 yrs old). Read my responses because they are valid arguments for SIGCOV when WP:SNG articles are involved. WP:GNG has a separate section for SNG which clearly states: Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. My last 2 comments in that discussion are the most important. Atsme 💬 📧 12:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional insight @Atsme I’m quite frustrated by the mass nominations also. It’s creating havoc at AFD. Arbcom just got rid of three regular AFD contributors, two of which would regularly nominate dozens of articles at a time. It’s annoying because all three could sometimes be valuable contributors at AFD! Self control and a willingness to listen and collaborate is important everywhere, but especially in areas where other editors gather for discussions. To be honest, if I was ever in a situation where I wanted to nominate more than one or two articles at a time I would approach a highly experienced editor and ask for advice. I am not here to cause trouble or make waves. I’ll be bold, but I am hoping to establish myself here as a quality contributor who gets along with people and can be trusted to act maturely and with humility when given feedback by others. Nominating ten articles at once is just ridiculous in my view. Unless it’s a bunch of total nonsense created by a brand new editor, 10 articles to afd? Just no. It’s way too many articles for people to assess at one time and leads to drive by voting and the potential for quality articles, or articles with the potential for quality, to be deleted. It also causes a lack of participation which results in re-listings, which then clogs up the feed and detracts attention from new nominations and so the cycle continues. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In short, one needs to check for sources before nominating an article. This is important. It is rare for any article for which there exists some reliable, significant coverage to survive an AFD. I personally agree with admin Ritchie333 that reliable sourcing kills an AFD. Deletion discussions are not cleanup - and so if there is reliable sourcing then tag the article for maintenance, or better yet, fix it oneself rather than nominating for deletion. Also, at NPP it is important to give articles a chance before nominating. We want to eliminate the unsalvageable crap that due to a lack of notability, no editing can fix. We do not want to sacrifice articles that need improvement but still meet guidelines and may grow into a good article. It is also important to consider alternatives to deletion, such as a merge or redirect (although these should not really be called an alternative in my view as they both still ultimately require deletion of the stand alone article, and a redirect on it's own is pretty much a deletion"

@Atsme MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

For articles one considers a deletion will be uncontroversial. A strong argument for deletion on policy grounds should be made. Using Twinkle will ensure the appropriate notifications and templates are made - frankly I would not PROD without Twinkle - too easy to miss something. No idea how the OG Wikipedians like you managed without the automation :)

PROD is only valid for a one time use, anyone can remove a PROD without justification. However, good editors know it is often frowned upon, very much so, to deprod articles without giving a reason (provided the PROD was made on strong grounds by an experienced editor, drive by PRODing can be removed without explanation), and especially so if they then do not make any sort of improvement to an article.

  • checkY As an NPP reviewer, you will have access to the curation tools which will provide quite a bit of information about that article and its creator. Your job will be to make sure the algorithm marked it properly so that you can resolve the issues. Look at the article creator's TP, and if you see a list of issues with no responses from that user, add your comment and then take action; i.e., do whatever is needed to the article, be it tagging, nomming, whatever. Atsme 💬 📧 12:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

A deletion method admins can use when no/minimal participation is made on an AFD. It can be hard to achieve quorum in some discussions, because there are many nominations and not enough XFD participants. Admins can soft delete the article, meaning an editor can request undeletion.

  • checkY

Used where a redirect to a sister project of Wikipedia is more appropriate than a stand alone article on Wikipedia.

CSD is important to get right as administrators can delete a correctly tagged page without a deletion discussion. Anyone can request speedy deletion but the article creator should generally not remove the CSD tag but instead contest. There are a number of non criteria which can be seen at WP:NOTCSD.

The following CSD tags can be placed on articles if they meet the following criteria.

  • G1 - Patent nonsense: Incoherent or gibberish. Total nonsense that means nothing, or word salad.
  • G2 - Test pages: Name says it all. These belong in ones sandbox or user page not main.
  • G3 - Something that is blatant misinformation, hoax, or unambiguously harmful to Wikipedia.
  • G4 - Pages identical to those deleted from a discussion.
  • G5 - Pages created by banned or blocked users
  • G6 - Maintenance category for technical deletions like empty maintenance, redirects, pages created in error, orphaned templates.
  • G7 - Author requests deletion where they are substantive contributor
  • G8 - Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page
  • G9 - Wikipedia Foundation deletion
  • G10 - Attack pages that attack its subject and serve no purpose other than to defame, harass, disparage.
  • G11 - Exclusively written in promotional manner, blatant advertising, needs to be fundamentally re-written
  • G12 - Copied from non-free source and nothing on the article worth saving
  • G13 - Stale drafts or AFC's by over six months and have not been edited
  • G14 - Orphaned or unnecessary disambiguation pages
  • A1 - No context - cannot identify subject
  • A2 - Not in English, exists on another Wikipedia project
  • A3 - Has no content, only has links elsewUser_talk:Dr_vulpes#Reminder_to_notify_page_author_when_tagging_for_CSDahere, attempts to contact the subject, rephrases the title.
  • A5 - Article that's been discussed at RXD and outcome was to transfer to another wikipedia project and this is done.
  • A7 - Article about a real person, musician, club, band, company, website, individual animal, event etc that makes no credible assertion of importance.
  • A9 - Article about a musical recording where the contributing artist does not have a recording and no indication of importance
  • A10 - Duplicate of existing article that does not improve on the one already here and a redirect not plausible
  • A11 - Article subject clearly invented
  • checkY My best advice here is to speedy only those articles you know for sure will be deleted. As for notability of a band - if it's an obvious garage band, if it's an animal, fish or species, probably not unless it's somebody's non-notable pet, companies are easier but even then AfD may be a better option because quite a few admins are hesitant to speedy delete articles. Sidebar note: I will come back and mark this as passed after I read your comment requested above. Atsme 💬 📧 12:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Passed Pt. 4 - good job!! You are almost done with the course!

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

Tags are used to point out the issues in an article. I prefer to address issues rather than tag. Here is my understanding in dot points.

  • Ensure tags are needed before adding and try to fix small issues oneself.
  • Avoid drive-by tagging without identifying issues. Add tags primarily for major issues.
  • Remove tags when you have no COI. Either fix the issue when removing OR leave a good edit summary explaining your actions.
  • Use dispute resolution such as discussion on talk page or (in an extreme situation) ANI or AIV.
  • Try to limit tags, too many can make some redundant.

checkY It is also important to reach out to the article creator so you don't have to do the work. Hopefully, it will get them in the habit of doing correctly the first time. Atsme 💬 📧 13:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, there is way too much detail to summarise in terms of technicalities here. I also do not foresee myself creating categories often if ever, but if I did I would follow the procedure. My understanding of categories is that they are used to help connect articles to topics. I generally look at an article similar to one that is existing and add appropriate categories using HOTCAT.

  • checkY HOTCAT does what we need for NPP. It's not our job to create categories. I'm pretty sure we have bot gnomes who specialize in categories. Do whatever is easiest for you to do at the time. The exercises follow so give me a chance to line them up for you! Atsme 💬 📧 13:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise

MaxnaCarta, before you begin, read the Notability in a nutshell banner at the top of this page, study it and think hard about the message it's sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, don't hesitate to take action as you would normally do as a bona fide patroller.

I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. The articles I've chosen are unreviewed, but it is possible they will have been reviewed by the time you get to them, so try not to wait too long after I've added them. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary. Atsme 💬 📧 13:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

1. The Essence of Cleveland The article passes my preliminary check. A quick scan tells me this article is not eligible for any speedy deletion unless it breaches copyright. Copyyvio detector shows copyright is not an issue.

The following sources are within the article:

  1. This is routine coverage that lacks sufficient depth to be considered significant coverage.
  2. This is significant coverage because it covers the article subject in depth. The source is neither perennial nor deprecated so I cannot concretely say it is reliable according to consensus. The AV club is a 29 year old source with its own well sourced Wikipedia article. I see no reasons to indicate it cannot be considered a reliable source. The source is secondary and independent of the subject.
  3. This is significant coverage because it covers the article subject in depth. Again source is not perennial or deprecated. I am however, a little concerned this appears to be some sort of blog, and user generated content is generally unacceptable.

At this stage, I am only seeing one example of significant coverage from a reliable source. I do also see this coverage from Metacritic which as a review aggregate site is generally considered acceptable. There is further significant coverage from TV Equals here, but it seems to be owned by the same company as the blog from before.

Overall, this is a complex patrol. The reason being is that on face value, it is not black and white as to whether or not there is appropriate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The television series itself does appear notable. However notability is not inherited, and an episode of a television series does not make it notable simply because it has aired. The episode needs to meet GNG on its own. There is arguably some independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrating notability for this episode. I actually see a case for nominating this article to AFD. Personally, I think the article does not warrant its own stand alone article and would better suit the project by being merged into the article covering season 2 of this show, and re-worded as a plot summary. A redirect may also be appropriate, and it is a common outcome for individual TV episodes to be deleted and redirected to appropriate episode lists.

However, I believe there is also a reasonable argument that WP:GNG is met, albeit an argument I think is weak. As a result, if I were patrolling I would choose to mark this article as reviewed. We have no firm rules. I do not believe there is a concrete violation of policies I can immediately detect. I believe the popularity of this tv show is likely to attract a significant number of keep votes at AFD.

I believe there is a real possibility notability is met here, and so am invoking my own personal judgement the article should be left for those contributors specialising in television episode writing to deal with at a later date if they so choose.

  • question mark Suggestion – your choice aligns with what another recently graduated NPP reviewer, and what they actually did. That is to be expected when first starting out. I went ahead and redirected it, and want you to review the edit history. When you get access to the curation tool, you will be able to see much more about what has happened at that article and if it has potential issues, but you should still review the edit history. Had you reviewed it, you would have seen the following important actions:
    21:02, September 24, 2011‎ JDDJS talk contribs‎ [+] 45 bytes −3,067‎ #REDIRECT The Cleveland Show (season 2) all plot and unsourced info undothank
    13:47, August 26, 2022‎ 86.130.132.140 talk‎ [+] 3,813 bytes +3,628‎ ←Removed redirect to The Cleveland Show (season 2)#ep39 undo Tags: Removed redirect Reverted large plot addition Disambiguation links added
    I looked to see if there were any significant changes to establish N after the redirect was removed, and I found none, so I restored the redirect. There is nothing notable or special about that single episode. Atsme 💬 📧 14:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme thanks! Doesn’t a redirect require you to delete the article? Or do you blank the page and insert a redirect template? I’ll go and review redirect instructions. A big challenge for me at Wikipedia is working with the code and doing things manually - where there is no button to press I sometimes avoid those tasks because I don’t wanna mess something up. Can editors who have their article turned into a redirect challenge if and revert it back? Wouldn’t the article then return to the unpatrolled queue? Thanks so much again ☺️ MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
MaxnaCarta, you blank the page. The history is kept. The articles I gave you to review are older articles that have been in the NPP queue for a while. Something happened that made them a new article in our queue. At NPP, we start with the oldest backlogs, not the new articles because within the first few weeks or so, those articles are being updated. I want you to study the history of the articles that I'm giving you to review. What makes them new is a reverted redirect or similar action that sends the article back into the NPP queue. Our job at NPP is to determine if the redirect was warranted - IOW, did they satisfy the issues that caused the redirect? This is why you must study the edit history. Atsme 💬 📧 23:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme thanks! If an article is already patrolled then we normally would not blank and redirect without consensus right? Seems like a dangerous move, to blank an article and redirect without asking anyone. I've just tried to tread super lightly during my first year to avoid stepping on any ones toes. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@MaxnaCarta: - you are absolutely correct in your hesitation. If an article is already patrolled, you need to know how it was patrolled - was it the action of an NPP reviewer, or was it an auto-patrolled creation of an editor who simply has the autopatrolled rights? NPP reviews are different from a simple autopatrolled article - the article creator may have the autopatrolled right, and not be an NPP reviewer. I will add that UPEs manage to get autopatrolled rights, and we have had occasion where they were NPP reviewers – the same applies to admins. We AGF but exercise caution. When you become an NPP reviewer, you can unreview an article, but be certain you are correct in your reason to unreview. It is better to consult with a peer first (your tutor), and then approach the reviewer. That is how we learn. Atsme 💬 📧 00:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Atsme. I will always be very cautious of anything that is like "wheel warring". But most importantly, is that if I make a mistake I will just be nice if asked about it and undo when asked by a good faith contributor. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

2. National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology First source is not secondary. Second source is not significant in its coverage, does not address in depth. The third source appears to be significant coverage from an independent, reliable and secondary source. The Times of India is assessed as between no-consensus of reliability to unreliable. However my judgement is that on this occasion, the source appears appropriate. Further, there is quite a lot of coverage in several sources here, here. There are many hits all over the place. I would choose to mark this article as reviewed.

3. Kamakhya Narayan Singh Google search as shown here shows some sigcov in reliable sources. Article needs improvement and sources added but the WP:SOURCESEXIST and so I would choose to mark this article as reviewed

4. Oh My Lord (TV series) I would not assess this article. The reason being is that I have time and time again seen articles about foreign TV shows get nominated at AFD only for a more skilled person than I to locate significant coverage in the language of that country. At least one of the sources appears it may possibly meet guidelines, however I would leave this for another patroller.

  • checkY - that's ok, you can also set filters in the NPP feed and focus on the kinds of articles you are comfortable reviewing.

5. Chandni Chowk, Dhaka There are multiple sources within the article. Some of these contain routine coverage about the markets opening hours, however there does seem to be significant coverage from appropriate foreign sources. Again, very difficult to assess foreign sources. Using google translate it does appear these sources are appropriate. I would choose to mark this article as reviewed

Some additional thoughts:

This task was more difficult than I first imagined. Personally, I think I breezed through the theory part of this course. However the practical part, the time where the rubber hits the road and I actually have to act in the position of firewall - do I or do I not approve this article.... it is a much more difficult decision. Assuming I have passed the course, I will need to take my first reviews very slowly. I will only assess that with which I feel truly comfortable with. To be honest, I actually would have at first left all of these pages for more experienced patrollers until I develop a knack for things. I think this part of the course really hit home the task ahead of me Atsme. Patrolling is not as easy as I thought it would be. Knowing the policies well, which for the most part I do, is not sufficient. Only with time will I become a really good patroller, and I would be very open to feedback on my patrols from experienced patrollers till I develop my skills.MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  • That's what I'm here for – to help guide and tutor. Now you have a pretty good idea of why I said it wasn't a cake walk. Atsme 💬 📧 16:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Adding - if you don't see a TP - create one, and include/add project banners so the respective team can help improve the article.

NPP Exercise Pt 2

1 Spider-Man:_Life_Story Yay! This one is easy. Does not meet notability standards, period. I have restored the most recent redirect. I would not mark this as patrolled.

2 Richard Dinan This reminds me of the deletion discussion at Akash Ambani. There is in my view, extensive significant coverage in multiple reliable sources of the subject. Some people argue that WP:NOTINHERITED would prevent an article like this from being included. Indeed, one user has already PRODed the article for this reason. However the dePRODing contributor did add several sources to the article. I fundamentally disagree with the assertion of WP:NOTINHERITED and make the same argument I did at the Ambani article: NOTINHERITED means that an otherwise unknown individual who becomes involved romantically with Tom Cruise, or works for Tom Cruise, does not inherit the notability of Tom Cruise. One does not become notable because they are involved with Tom Cruise. However if there is significant coverage of the individual, merely that there is only significant coverage of the individual because of their association with Cruise does not negate the coverage. Many people are notable because of their parents, family, or company. What is important is that they are actually notable. If they aren't, then no article. If they are even if it's because of something or someone they're involved with, WPNOTINHERITED (which is not even a guideline driven by consensus), does not apply.

A redirect has also been rejected by other users. I believe there is sufficient sourcing covering the article subject to meet WP:ANYBIO and as such notability standards are met and I would mark this article as reviewed.

  1. Merak dance

I'd have restored the redirect to Peacock dance but an administrator has already done this and blocked the sock who undid the original redirect. Subject insufficiently covered in reliable sources to warrant a standalone article.

  1. 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL)

Restoring redirect. Article meets notability, however per PAGEDECIDE there is insufficient information to write a full article about this. It also sniffs of a NOTNEWS violation, and overall the primary world cup article is the correct place to include such information. This redirect will save the page history, allowing for a merge by a so motivated editor. I would not mark this article as reviewed.

  • checkY The redirect goes into the NPP queue, at which time a reviewer will evaluate the redirect and determine if it should be marked as reviewed (which is a typical result and what I just did), or if something else should be done. Atsme 💬 📧 14:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  1. The Listener (film)

Meets notability stands per NFILM. Principal photography has commenced and since concluded. Multiple reliable sources are included and more available elsewhere. I would mark this article as reviewed.

Atsme I'm done! Have actioned previous tasks also. Actually feel good about these patrols! I feel much more confident with these than I did the others. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  •  Passed the entire course. @MaxnaCarta:, you did it!!! *<:o) Congratulations!! I knew you would. I will write my evaluation below, and when that is done, you can apply for NPP rights and be sure to point to my evaluation (use hashtag #). Atsme 💬 📧 14:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    To be honest I’m kind of sad I will not be talking to you every day? But I know there is a lot of work to do and other students wanting tutoring. I will apply for the NPP right and certainly reach out if I have any questions. @Atsme thank you so much for all your help. I have enjoyed this course immensely. I have messaged you a private note via the message function on your photography Facebook account. I do hope you do not mind - I would never look someone up but your website was on Wikipedia and business Facebook linked to that. Have a wonderful day. MC MaxnaCarta (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I know, ;,( but it is a happy sad to graduate, -<-@ and keep in mind, I'm still available if you have any questions, or simply need a 2nd opinion. My UTP gets a lot of traffic, so if I cannot answer, a (orange butt icon Buttinsky) will. That is the beauty of our WP community, and I hope the beauty is all you will ever see; never its darkside. Let me know when you apply for the right so I can comment under it. Atsme 💬 📧 15:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Atsme just applied :)
    I will absolutely check in with you from time to time. Oh I see the dark side haha. I love to stalk ANI and Arbcom and read up on how NOT to end up there. If a good faith editor really saw fit to take me there I would probably just pack my things and vanish. I hate being in drama. I do not mind reading it though ;) MaxnaCarta (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Evaluation

MaxnaCarta is ready to start helping with the NPP backlog. He started out as a promising reviewer, and he did not disappoint. His responses throughout this tutorial demonstrate a smart thinker who is knowledgable about WP:PAGs, is an excellent researcher, is thoughtful, studious and not impulsive; rather, he is a polite editor, even tempered with common sense and critical thinking skills. It was an honor for me to tutor him. Atsme 💬 📧 14:44, 29 August 2022 (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:Headbomb/unreliable - another useful tool that grades sources using highlight colors
  • 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.
  • User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool

Userbox

MaxnaCarta – you can display this user box now!! I'm also working on a topicon for us to use. Atsme 💬 📧 00:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

This User went through the rigors of WP:NPP school and graduated!!

VickKiang

checkY Passed September 8, 2022
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Notability in a nutshell

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.



Welcome New Trainee!

Instructions: VickKiang, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.

Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page.

checkY Noting that Vick has already completed this exercise prior to beginning this course. Atsme 💬 📧 23:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP:PAGs as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part so we can discuss your responses or any questions you may have before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.

Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace.

It may seem overwhelming 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 cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 23:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

Notability is a general guideline that determines if a topic should have an individual article, together with what Wikipedia is not. Notability is not the same with popularity or fame. (My favourite YouTuber, sadly, probably won't have a WP article:) despite being popular.) The general notability guideline usually determines notability, however, in other specific subjects, Wikipedia:SNG provide additional guidelines on how a particular subject might be considered to be notable (for example, if a film has won a major award with a WP article, it could be notable even if it didn't pass WP:GNG). The guideline usually isn't applicable to content within articles, and article content, or quality of the article, usually doesn't determine notability, which is based on if significant, independent, reliable, secondary refs exist, if so, it's a notable topic. For example, I've came across an AfD for an interesting book (Royal Exile) and the article is poor (violates WP:ALLPLOT), but refs were found in newspaper archives to show it's a notable topic. Notability is generally not temporary, and notable topics usually generate interest in refs for a long period of time. But, even if a topic is individually notable, it might be the case that editors decide not to include it as a standalone, if the article could be covered better somewhere else. Also, topics could also not be included because of WP:NOTNEWS, possibly a one-time event that had buzz for a few days, but the coverage is routine. Stand-alone lists generally doesn't have to meet WP:GNG if it meets WP:LISTN, and some lists could have navigation purposes, if it isn't WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If an article or list isn't notable, it would probably have to be merged, redirected, or put in an AfD/PROD/CSD. VickKiang (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Very well presented, Vick. I cannot overemphasize the banner at the top of this page, or the fact that WP:V and WP:NOT are the most important aspects of the N guideline. It was uplifting to see that you realize it, too. Far too many editors overlook the fact that, in the 2nd sentence of the guideline, verifiable is followed by a semicolon and immediately followed by reliable and independent sources; the 3 bolded being the most important aspects to consider first and foremost, and then we look to the guidelines for assistance in making a determination. Further in that paragraph it states: Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity–although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. IOW, fame, importance, or popularity actually do count, and make a standalone a little easier to be accepted. But then the policy leaves it up to editors to use their discretion, and that is where we often get into trouble at AfD. For a little different perspective relative to how the latter works, I invite you to read The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta authored by one of our own admins...my favorite part being the hegemony of the asshole consensus. ^_^ Atsme 💬 📧 14:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Before I forget, the purpose of AfD is to delete an article, but will elaborate on that further in Part 4. As a reviewer, you will be making the determination whether to speedy, prod or AfD, draftify or redirect, and that is why I consider discussions that inspire critical thinking during my tutorials to be extremely important. There are no guarantees that we will make the correct decision 100% of the time, but we should at least try to maintain a 75%+ average which will likely fluctuate over time. Atsme 💬 📧 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The WP:GNG usually determines notability if no other WP:SNG apply. It states that an article is presumed to be notable if it received significant coverage in multiple independent RS. But even if the article meet WP:GNG, occasionally, but it meets what WP is not, it might still be deleted. The significant coverage requires that refs have more than a trivial mention, a routine press release, or a plot guide/recap, IMHO, SIGCOV probably means a long paragraph or around 100 words. Independent means the ref isn't related or affiliated to the subject- not one's own website or advertising releases. IMHO, multiple means 2 or more refs, but it's usually very borderline if there's just 2. A lot of these I participated in closed as no consensus with just 2 refs, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains (Heroes) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Machine. RS means the ref has editorial policies to ensure it's reliable and verifiable, or if the author is a subject-matter-expert (probably with a WP page, or have written in other RS). Sources should also usually be secondary, as these are more objective to primary refs. VickKiang (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkYThis can be tricky because V and NOT actually determine N – if an article does not meet the criteria of those 2 polices, the review ends there. Both N and GNG are guidelines that put the ball back into the court of consensus (the hegemony), and that contributes to why we find ourselves arguing (occasionally wasting valuable time) at AfD. For example, the context of NOT:INDISCRIMINATE is often misunderstood, perhaps because WP:CSC is overlooked, as is WP:LISTN. A classic example is Viola repertoire which was recently nommed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions for viola: A to B and then challenged: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 September 1. We also see notable articles that pass GEOLAND, but end-up at AfD because the nom has misinterpreted PAGs or simply lacks common sense about what constitutes "notable" when they get into a topic that is over their head – I see it as being more along the line of can't see the forest for the trees. Atsme 💬 📧 14:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Adding some info for you to consider relative to the Heroes episode. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eclipse (Heroes) because my evaluation conflicts with yours in Villains, and I am happy to discuss it with you in more detail if you so desire after you read my reasons for deleting. Another thought to consider is whether or not a RS is reliable relative to the material to be included, or if an unreliable source is reliable for inclusion – those are the nuances we have to consider because CONTEXTMATTERS. If the context of what the source published does not support what NEPISODE requires, the source should not be cited. That is source stacking. However, if multiple sources are publishing a small amount of information about a topic/subject or perhaps citing or quoting it, that kind of stacking could well serve to establish N. Atsme 💬 📧 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
In some topics, WP:SNG also provide additional info to WP:GNG per community consensus as a general guideline for notability, articles passing SNGs usually have verifiable sourcing and deserve a standalone article. Though, some articles that pass SNG may still may be merged or redirected. Some SNGs provide additional criteria that might warrant an article, for example, SNG guidelines for films and books allow an article if it won a major award, whereas a biography might also be notable if one is included in the national biographical entry. Some SNGs also provide more info for WP:GNG, such as what's "trivial", for example, the books guidelines state This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5], along with other thresholds (books need ISBNs) and clarifications on literature reviews. Other SNGs, such as WP:NPRODUCT, make the WP:GNG guideline stricter. There are also some WikiProjects (WP:NEPISODE and notability guidelines for board games) with additional essays that provide helpful info on notability, but isn't a guideline. VickKiang (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY SNG is under fire right now. Start at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale#Introduction. While SNG covers geographic features, we sometimes run into deletionists who tend to not apply a good measure of critical thinking or common sense in their evaluations, or they may simply be over their heads in a topic area. For example, a 30 page published study lists several primary Study Sites, all of which are protected areas and named geographic features. The study is focused on potential impacts to those primary sites but the sampling occurs in a variety of locations that do not specifically name those sites but are directly connected to them. The Abstract explains the potential of overall impacts to the overall region in which the study sites are located (but don't name them) based on their research. Overall, the potential effects to those sites may prove devastating; therefore, it was determined by the study to continue monitoring them on a regular basis.
  • Questions for you: (a) are the named geographic features listed in the Study Sites notable, and (b) if WP has stand alone articles about those study sites, is the material in the abstract DUE for inclusion in those articles? Atsme 💬 📧 14:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. Since they are named geographical features, IMHO it probably meets criteria 4 under geographic regions, [named] natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. It's a 30 page published study that lists all of these overall impacts generally, but do not specifically name those sites. So, if an article is written, it would probably be stubby, with at best basic geographical info and general overview of future impacts. At the same time, future monitoring could yield more detailed reports. I am iffy on if it meets WP:V, considering that without further studies there could only be general overview on the environmental impacts in the future (not even a specific description on the site's own unique features could be made). If this is on an AfD, IMHO the whether the notability meets WP:GEOLAND is borderline, I'd probably, in the absence of a merge/redirect target nor any other refs, either drafitfy or weak delete, as there could be potential based on future studies.
Secondly, IMHO selective parts of the abstract would be due for inclusion. IMHO the general descriptions of the results and the site's potential impacts are probably worthy of inclusion (if this is the only study). Though, the abstract probably talks about the methodology, IMO including the methodology of one study is too technical and undue for a general encyclopedia. I know the answer to question a is bad and probably deletionist, but that's of course just my POV:) VickKiang (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:NCORP is another WP:SNG. It states that companies, products, and organisations are not inherently notable (not even schools, since a 2017 RfC IMHO, please correct me if my date is wrong) or inherited notable. For example, if a billionaire bought a minor local restaurant with no SIGCOV, the restaurant won't be considered notable unless it meets NCORP by itself. This criteria is notably stricter than WP:GNG, needing multiple significant (direct and detailed) coverage that are completely independent, secondary RS. For a ref to be significant, routine info on press releases or company stock or interviews aren't SIGCOV (the latter is also primary). But detailed company reviews, detailed news reporting for a obviously notable controversy, a scholarly article that's peer-reviewed, detailed, independent reviews, a book, or an encyclopedic entry (the latter is teritary but in most cases RS) are considered to be SIGCOV. WP:NCORP isn't related to popularity, much like WP:GNG, and it's the quality and depth of coverage of the refs, rather than quantity, that matters, doing WP:OR from a lot of trivial refs aren't indicative of notability. Not-for-profit organisations might also be notable if its scope is national or international, if so, they might have received widespread attention already.
Example: consider a company called I made up:) called The Dog Food Company, with 4 refs. Ref 1 is a one sentence mention from the Wirecutter from The New York Times (we've also tested the famous dry dog food The Dog Food Company for our pets, which is excellent, but is less well reviewed online compared to other products we've listed), ref 2 is a detailed, 500-word long review of the company from a niche website with an about us and FAQ page but no editorial policies, ref 3 is a press release from another RS, and ref 4 is a Forbes contributor article. Ref 1 is reliable, independent and secondary but not significant as it's an one-sentence coverage. Ref 3 is reliable but not significant nor independent. Similarly, ref 4 is non-reliable as the contributors aren't staff, and it's probably non-independent. Ref 2 is probably situational in reliability, as it has some about us and FAQ pages, but no editorial policies, though I'd check if the editor or the editor-in-chief is qualified or appeared in any RS. But even if ref 2 is RS (which it's probably not), there's only 1 ref, failing the multiple requirement. If the tone is not too advert-like, and upon a quick digging there's 1 more ref that might be situational, I'd probably draftify it. But if it's very advert-like, or upon a check no ref is plausibly meeting WP:NCORP maybe go with AfD or CSD. VickKiang (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY I tend to align with strict compliance to PAGs in our ongoing effort to prevent stealth promotion, marketing, and sales from being included in WP. Businesses are notorious for finding ways to sneak into the pedia. Companies pay big bucks for PR to not look like paid promotion, and we do have very real issues relative to UPE/PE. While we are obligated to AGF, and accept PE if they follow PAGs, we are equally obligated to protect WP from improper use. We should not discriminate against smaller companies that are notable and worthy of inclusion by holding them to the same standards that we evaluated larger corporations, such as financial earnings, publicly traded, etc. I cannot over-emphasize the importance of considering a topic's/subject's encyclopedic value relative to: (a) being a notable first, (b) having historic significance, (c) having made a significant contribution to society, etc.
  • Question: If a film meets WP:GNG by having 2 or 3 reliable reviews but meets non of the WP:NFILM criteria (I've seen a couple of AfDs with this example before), should it be kept or deleted?
  • First consideration is to see if WP:NFO#2 applies. None of us can say for certain if an article should be kept or deleted because as I mentioned above, even if WP:V and WP:NOT are met, the ball is in the court of consensus. The outcome will depend on the strength of your argument, and the judgment of the closer. Sometimes the latter alone makes the determination, and that is one of the flaws of consensus, (which closely aligns in many ways with democracy and finding yourself as the sheep in a discussion with 3 wolves deciding on what's for dinner).
WP:RS is a guideline on which refs that articles should be based on. Usually, they should be reliable, independent, and published for subjects in which it's an expert (example: video game review websites are fine for video games, but no one would cite it for a scientific claim). To do so they should have a good record of fact-checking and accuracy, probably through about us pages, editorial policies, FAQs, and so on. Usually, if a ref is widely cited by other RS, it's probably RS. Most WP articles, especially for science and medicine-related topics, are based on scholarly articles. Lots of RS are secondary (though RS encyclopedias are also fine teritary refs, a primary source, provided use with caution and no WP:OR, might very rarely be acceptable), peer-reviewed, journals that are widely cited, and are not predatory journals or unduly represents a minority/fringe viewpoint. For example, Nature (journal) is definitely RS, whereas Cambridge Scholars Publishing is a non-RS predatory one with low peer-review standards. Established news refs, such as The New York Times and The Economist, are RS, though could occasionally be biased (but doesn't impact reliability), for some specific subjects more reliable scholarly refs might be better. The currency of a ref matters, for example, it probably isn't the best to quote a 100-year old article about climate change or sleep, although sometimes breaking news could be too current and might violate WP:NOTNEWS, news headlines are also usually sensational and non-RS. For opinion pieces of news articles, there's a wide difference of reliability depending on the author's qualifications, and WP:DUE weight should also be considered. Some news refs could be biased and opinionated, but usually per WP:NPOV viewpoints are duely presented, unless editors determine a news ref to be questionable because of persistent bias, sensation, and errors. In this case, a source might be deprecated for statements of facts such as The Daily Mail.
However, some (or most) websites are questionable sources that have no editorial policies, or are extreme in ideologies to the point of fabrication, or are promotional sites that publish low-quality sponsored articles, which are also generally unreliable. Lots of questionable refs are self-published refs, which aren't reliable usually, though the reliability depends on the author's qualification, for example, if a blog is written by a prominent film reviewer, it's probably fine to use provided with attribution and not used for more contentious topics, but if it's written by me then it's without a doubt unreliable, the latter also because of my bad taste in films:) A lot of user-generated websites, such as IMDb and Reddit, also fall into this category. But, if the SPS is talking directly about itself for an unexceptional, not exaggerated claim, it could be used, provided that the article mainly uses refs that are WP:RS. Overall, the reliability of a source matters greatly upon contexts, for example, a contentious BLP claim probably need high-quality secondary refs (instead of situationally reliable primary ones), whereas a routine description on when a game was published and its rules probably don't need high reliability requirements. VickKiang (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Well done! I am a firm believer in adherence to NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, and REDFLAG. Unfortunately, my view is in the minority despite policy. I also want to add a little something about neutrality, so I will point you to the following essay: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content#Editorial neutrality.
  • When reviewing articles, it is not just about meeting N requirements. You may need to tag the article for various reasons, such as NPOV, or too short of a lead (which I've been seeing way too much of lately.) It may even be an article that you know is notable but needs more RS to pass, you have the option to tag it, or just find & cite the RS. We should not let NPP get to the point we are so pressed for time, and worried about our growing backlog that we are inadvertently lowering the quality of our reviews. It's ok to go ahead and create the article TP if one is lacking (I instigated a phab request to automate the TP task, and a few more for menial tasks). If you're not too busy, it's ok to take some time to cite a few sources if needed, or fix glaring grammar errors, or expand the lead beyond 2 sentences. Keep in mind that once NPP marks an article as reviewed, it gets INDEXED, so it's better to do the little fixes in lieu of having our readers wade through tags. Atsme 💬 📧 19:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
I'd first check if it meets any general CSD criteria, or has copyvios. If so, it might need revdeling, if there's almost not any non-infringing text, it might need to be CSDed. Then, check if the article meets WP:GNG with 2 or more RS that are independent and significant at the barest, if it meets, then the article should be all right to be reviewed, adding tags, categorising, and basic cleanup are probably needed. If not, check if it meets WP:SNG and WP:LISTN by doing a Google search, if still not, check if it meets A7 or A9, without any significant claims, or the PROD guideline for BLPs. If the article neither meets any notability guidelines nor meet CSD or BLP PROD guidelines, I'll AfD or PROD it if the subject seems to be clearly non-notable, but if there are a few situational refs (maybe 1 good ref and 1 ref with about us and FAQs but no editorial policies), draftifying is probably good as the article has some merit. VickKiang (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY You are pretty advanced in this area, so there is not too much more I can add beyond a few tips. A good habit to get into is to first look at the article log and edit history, because we tend to start with the oldest articles in the NPP queue. The curation tools will give you some advantage in that regard, and will indicate if there is a copyvio issue, and will also provide much of the history. You are likely to find hijacked or removed redirects, and recreated AfDs. You will be able to apply filters limiting what you see in the queue, which is pretty handy. We stay away from reviewing brand new articles to allow time for page curation. What I hope you will keep in mind as a reviewer (and probably already do), is before you PROD or AFD an article reach out to the article creator on their UTP, and offer guidance. The state of the article will indicate what you are dealing with, but a quick visit to the creator's UTP will speak volumes as to who you are dealing with relative to them being receptive to help and guidance, a potential UPE, etc. I imagine you are pretty familiar with CSD, and that it is not easy to get an article speedied unless it is a blatant fail. Sometimes what we consider a blatant fail, an admin will find some reason that it's not. I have requested stats to see the results of turned-down speedies that went to AfD and were kept or deleted. Atsme 💬 📧 19:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: I've done these, if you could have a look and give me some feedback that would be great:) I'll do the next lesson later. VickKiang (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 Passed Pt. 1 with flying colors My comments are interspersed above. Atsme 💬 📧 19:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

This guideline states that editors should assume good faith given the lack of obvious evidence of bad faith editing, and not take part in personal attacks. Everyone, especially newer editors, might make mistakes, such as with copyvios, MoS adherence, and so on. During edit conflicts, it's probably the best to seek WP:3O or dispute resolution compared to incivility and edit warring. This applies to reviewing pages- welcoming the page creators (through Twinkle) and inviting them to the Teahouse if their articles are draftified or deleted. VickKiang (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
BLP (or people born within 115 years) articles are highly sensitive and could be prone to incidents. These articles must strictly follow WP:NPOV, which needs a neutral tone without bias or tabloid-like sensationalisation, with praises and criticisms of the person duely represented by secondary, reliable refs, follow WP:V, and no WP:OR. Also, high-quality, secondary RS are needed for all info that is contentious. Unlike other articles, when the use of SPS refs, gossipy tabloids, and primary sources could sometimes be used, these should be generally prohibited for BLPs. If statements are unsourced, doesn't follow WP:NPOV, is WP:OR or fails WP:V, it's the best to rm these info from articles. Privacy should be taken care for relatively unknown individuals, one example would be an individual notable only because of a single incident. The BLP guidelines also apply to WP outside article spaces, such as usernames and events. In some situations, the subject of the BLP could edit to rm obviously uncited or false info, but WP:COI should also apply. Generally, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG states when a BLP should be included at WP, but be aware on WP:NOTNEWS, especially for individuals notable for a single event. BLPs might be deleted from AfDs, BLP PRODs (for subjects without any refs), or, in very bad cases, WP:CSD, maybe through A7 or G10 for very negative attack-like pages. VickKiang (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY WP is not suffering from a lack of editors willing to share (force) their opinions, especially in contentious topic areas, like AP2. stop. We are lucky in the sense that our involvement as reviewers happens before a BLP has had a chance to mature into a state of contentiousness. We barely escape. I remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chasten Buttigieg in May 2019, resulting in this redirect, which ended up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 30#Chasten_Buttigieg, but it did not end there because now we have Chasten Buttigieg, primarily inherited notability. He is married to the Secretary of Transportation. Getting that BLP to at least appear encyclopedic was no cake walk as the edit history demonstrates. How many BLPs of other spouses of transportation secretaries or former presidential candidates do we have on WP? It is a wonder if the spouses of any politician or employee in service of the government are even mentioned. What it all boils down to is the hegemony...^_^. All you can do is adhere closely to our PAGs, and wear flame retardant underwear if you CSD, AfD or redirect a popular political non-notable. Atsme 💬 📧 12:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:COI or paid editing is when an editor has an external relationship, such as writing an autobiography or article about one's friends/family/company. Because COI violates WP:NPOV, editors should disclose COIs or paid editing, are strongly discouraged (not entirely prohibited) from editing articles where they have COI except for rv vandalism/cleanup/copy-editing/rm their own COI, and propose changes instead; the latter should also disclose during related discussions and at user pages. If an article is desired, submitting through AfC is probably best. COIs are only when an editor has an external relationship one is writing about, and is not applicable when an editor simply has a POV. When responding to requests, WP:V, WP:OR, due weight, and independent, reliable refs are needed for the edit to be accepted. Usually, the paid editor should have copyrights to their edits, more other policies in US, Europe, Canada, and UK are also present. When COI is suspected, related templates could be tagged and the user warned, if it's very bad and unambiguous advertising, maybe CSD G11 is the way to go. VickKiang (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY I'm not quite convinced that WMF does not encourage it by the mere fact that they allow it. Q: What is the difference between a WP volunteer and a paid editor? Volunteers put social responsibility ahead of profits so paid editors can make more profit. ^_^ Atsme 💬 📧 13:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
WP articles, including editor contributions, are subject to copyright laws similar to the US government copyright laws. Wikipedia's texts and photos follow Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and GNU Free Documentation License which means it's all right to copy, modify, and redistribute WP content given the copied version is also available for use to others and there's proper attribution, at minimum a link to the original article as an acknowledgement (it's probably best to describe that the text has been modified). If you found text somewhere else, you can not just copy it to WP unless it meets public domain, CCBYSA or another similar license. Otherwise, creative works have copyright must meet Wikipedia:Non-free content or CCBYSA, some also have requirements for author credit, especially when you have a special permit to do this. But linking a copyright work, such as refs, don't violate these policies, but caution is needed for refs that routinely engages in plagiarism. The same applies for images/videos, which need to follow CCBYSA, public domain, or fair use guidelines. If the work has copyright with none of these conditions followed, it's a copyvio that needs to be revdeled, if the entire page has this issue, CSD is needed. VickKiang (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY As reviewers, we exercise common sense when evaluating close paraphrasing, and exact wording. Example: a short sentence that is an exact description of an object, title, award, etc. from a cited 20 page article is not a copyvio. Even when it is longer to the point of being borderline, take a minute and paraphrase it instead of tagging or deleting. Atsme 💬 📧 13:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not the best idea to create hoaxes, despite it being easy to create one, even if you are just doing a test edit to examine WP's accuracy, there are better ways to do that. Delibrate hoaxing results in misinformation to readers, often with very misleading or damaging results, both for WP's reputation and the experiences of readers. In some instances, such as a scientific or medical hoax claiming COVID is because of 5G towers or something like that, it could be harmful to the reader. Hoaxes fail WP:V, so it's best to tag the hoax, AfD, or PROD something might be a hoax, in some instances, blatant hoaxes could be CSDed, for example, if I wrote an autobiography repeatedly claiming that I'm a celebrity, that's a blatant hoax deserving CSD:). But an article is about a famous hoax widely reported by RS, provided if it meets WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, WP:V, WP:NPOV and so on, it could be included in WP. VickKiang (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
A page that attacks a subject or is wholely negative, with very poor or no refs and no versions to rv to, it should be tagged for CSD under G10, with the page blanked as a courtesy (the user should also be warned). G10 doesn't just reply to articles, drafts, userspaces and so on could also be tagged under this. Sometimes, if the subject is in fact notable, it's best to just write an entirely new version of the article meeting WP:NBIO/WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. VickKiang (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)

This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading

  • Discussions with creators of new pages
It's important to welcome new creators of new pages, and discuss if their pages have been deleted or drafitified (possibly a short explanation on why their pages doesn't meet notability). Otherwise, directing them to the teahouse, the help desk, or a WikiProject they are probably interested in are probably good ideas to welcome them into the community. VickKiang (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Well said. What I am seeing now at AfD is a little bit of hostility toward stubs. I can relate because stubs remind me of being with a group of people who use WP but don't know how to edit. We would be inundated with article suggestions! For example, one of my groups would be like..."Hey, Babes! You need to write an article 'bout Bubba Smith! 'Member the time he went to Sturgis and ran into the Bandidos – I mean literally, man! He ran slap dab in the middle of 'em on his Harley – I seen it all, and it weren't the accident that killed 'em. It would make a great article!" m( On a serious note, some editors forget to AGF, which is easy to do when one feels a lot of work was just dumped on them. A good portion of those stubs are likely to be coming from Editathons staged by local WP communities/groups in a particular area (globally speaking), or it could be a university Editathon. Quite frankly, sometimes they churn out half-assed stubs. The latter is why I tried to get the BoT to consider making better use of the stubs/articles we draftify (the ones that are salvageable), and use them for Editathons instead of creating more new articles/stubs that wind-up getting CSD, AfD or draftified. I am currently working on what I believe to be one of those Editathon creations (no way to know for certain). A recent grad of my course posed a question about a stub, and posted it at WT:NPP/R, and what resulted may end up being an example in a future lesson about selling stubs short and not taking the time to look for RS. While I tend to support draftification of poorly cited/poorly written articles (think Bubba Smith) it's possible that if one does perform WP:BEFORE, it may turn out that underneath the presentation is buried a encyclopedic article (and maybe even Bubba Smith). Atsme 💬 📧 17:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss
In a lot of cases, such as when notifying deletion or posting warnings, an automated notification will do. But sometimes, if you are pointing out minor editing mistakes that a template won't do (explaining Manual of Style, notability guidelines, so on), it's the best idea to make an individualised comment. I use Twinkle for welcoming, but more info could be added below the welcoming template, which is probably a good idea, especially when thanking the editor for a particularly good edit, for example, I've seen an IP a few weeks ago rescuing an AfDed article which ended up with speedy keep:). Manually directing them to an interesting WikiProject and intriguing articles is also a good option. When a page created was particularly good while reviewing, IMO writing an individualised congratulating comment is also a good idea. VickKiang (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
Similarly to WP:AGF, assuming good faith when there isn't obvious evidence otherwise and treating each other in a civil way during disputes is best. During discussions, such as clarifying on why a page is deleted or drafitfied, it is important to have a clear tone that is knowledgable but also nice and welcoming, without using too many WP jargon (NPOV, GNG...). For example, if an editor's first creation was deleted, it's probably the best to welcome them and direct them to the teahouse rather than posting a warning (other than the automatic deletion notification), unless it obviously meets a CSD criteria. VickKiang (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Perfect!
  • Wikilove/positive comments
Wikilove is great when someone does something great, such as helping to improve an article, being insightful in discussions, or creating a great page, if they have done something awesome, why not award a barnstar? VickKiang (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Nice. Just an fyi - I made a few customizable...meh, maybe some are questionable, wikilove banners that everybody is welcome to use.
When rv vandalism, promotional edits, or attack pages, warning templates could be useful, usually from level 1 to level 4, if disruption continues, reporting to AIV is usually required. However, if a new good-faith editor just made a minor mistake, it's probably the best to manually notify their mistake in a user talk page discussion rather than posting a template, which could be intimidiating, especially the post-level 3 ones. For an user's first edit that isn't really vandalism/test edit but just minorly deviating with WP's article Manual of Style, NPOV or refs formatting, it might be a good idea to post a different version of welcoming template from Twinkle with some tips and cautions. VickKiang (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Well done!
@Atsme: I've done Pt.3. VickKiang (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

AfD is a process when WP editors come together for seven days (initially) to decide if an article should be deleted, kept, merged, redirected, moved, or drafitified (non-comprehensive list). The final result is not a vote but a consensus formed and is based on the judgement of the closer. AfD article shouldn't meet CSD criteria (very uncontroversially non-notable articles might also be PRODed), civility is also important in AfD discussions as sometimes an AfD discussion results in a very long debate, especially when the outcome isn't clear for seven days if so, the AfD will be relisted. Before AfDs, WP:BEFORE should be followed, some AfDs could also end in no consensus if there's no agreement, or subject to a deletion review if editors doubt the close was valid. VickKiang (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Before AfD noms, it's important to understand deletion policies, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, what WP is not, and related WP:SNG. Secondly, check if a PROD, CSD, or speedy keep is more valid, and have a look to see if there are previous discussions, or the current version was vandalised. Then, check if it could be merged or redirected, drafitfied (if it's a very new article), and optionally tag problems or discuss them on the talk page (or relevant WikiProject) first, especially for areas you are not an expert in. Nextly, search refs on Google, Google News, Google Books, and maybe more related websites you know that might have info related to this (for example, when AfDing board games, I usually go to BGG, it's a user-generated website, but it has helpful links to reviews in other websites that mightn't be well indexed on Google). If, after all of these steps, an AfD is still relevant, WP:BEFORE is wrong and an AfD discussion should take place. VickKiang (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I am beginning to think we should reorder C & D, and put them in the A & B spot because the latter supports a deletionist perspective. We are working with volunteers, and few of us, if any, really want to spend more time than necessary - it's the old adage that doing so is above my pay scale. We live in a fast environment - IN & OUT Burger, TikTok, want it now. Liken it to being a contractor building a house, and your carpenter did not follow specs.
PROD is suitable if for an uncontroversial deletion for an article, list, or file, it should not be used at the same time with an AfD. PRODs last for seven days, if unchallenged, the article is deleted. But any editor could rm the PROD tag, after the tag is removed, PROD couldn't be done, an AfD discussion is better. Before PROD, steps should be taken similarly to AfDs- check if there are any refs you can find, check if merging/redirecting is better, and check if it has been AfDed or PRODed before. While PRODing, make sure a clear, policy-based, concise rationale is given. If you object a PROD, it's usually best to give a reason. BLP PRODs are similar and are applicable if a BLP has no refs whatsoever, before noms, find refs and consider alternatives. Contrary to PRODs, BLP PRODs might only be removed if one reliable ref has been added, if the ref is borderline, or if the article still fails WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, AfD is the route to take. VickKiang (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY
Soft deletion is when an AfD receives participation from few editors, though, the content could usually be restored at requests for undeletion. Similarly to soft deletion, any editor may redirect an obviously problematic article if there aren't any objections. VickKiang (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY
If an article is non-encyclopedic for WP, it could be transwikified and then deleted. Though, because of potential recreation for commonly wikified entries, it might be best to redirect the word to a relevant article on English WP or a soft redirect to another Wiki. VickKiang (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • This is one we need to be careful about. I don't see it as an immediate issue, but you may encounter neologisms being redirected to Wiktionary, and we do not want that to go rogue. Atsme 💬 📧 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
CSD is a set of strict criteria that could bypass usual PRODs or AfDs. Before tagging an article for CSD, editors could consider alternatives, improvements, or merging/redirecting. A page is only eligible for CSD, such as unambiguous copyvios for almost all of its content and unquestionable advertisements, if all of its page history is applicable without good versions to rv it back to. The page creator usually couldn't rm a CSD tag, but may contest for undeletion, if another editor removes the tag, the CSD could be controversial and PROD or AfD would be better. After a CSD is tagged, admins may speedily delete the article if it obviously meet the CSD criteria, or decline it if otherwise. VickKiang (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

Tags should be constructive and indicate problems, though if tags are for non-obvious issues, it's good to point out the problem clearly in edit summaries or talk pages, if the editor doesn't explain the problem nor help with the article, it might be considered a drive-by tagging, which isn't the most helpful. Minor issues should be fixed by yourself if possible, which is helpful to avoid over-tagging. Over-tagging means tagging a lot of unhelpful or redundant tags, such as tagging both fanpov and POV, or more citation needed and unreliable refs, it's important for the main problems to be clearly explained, don't add vague tags, such as just adding a cleanup or rewritten one. Other editors not majorly involved in the article, if they believe the issues are addressed or non-applicable, could rm this tag usually with an explanation; if there are disputes, discuss at talk pages. VickKiang (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY - just noting that I have encountered editors who will delete material because they consider the source unreliable rather than simply remove the source and tag the material with [citation needed] which is a much better option unless we are dealing with a BLP vio. We don't want to be the editors who remove material (unless it's a BLP vio or equivalent). Also keep in mind that WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, and our job as NPP reviewers is to have an above average understanding of CONTEXTMATTERS and how it relates to cited sources. Another issue to be on the watch for – 2 to 3 sentence leads for a C+ rated article no. If you don't have time to expand the lead, then please tag it.
Categorising is a helpful way to provide helpful links for navigations in WP. Usually, standard naming conventions (don't capitalise regular nouns), singular topic categories, plural set categories, and the avoiding of abbreviation or jargon are needed. For example, Donald Trump should be singular, but Villages in Argentina should be plural. The category structure usually isn't necessary, technicial words should be from RS, and puffery words shouldn't be used. Adding articles to categories is required to create categories, most of the times, it's helpful to have a category description. Every WP page, excluding talk pages/drafts/redirects/user pages, should belong in at least one category, though articles should be categorised in specific categories with verifiable info (from RS) on why an article is placed into a category that follows WP:V and WP:NPOV. Files might also be categorised, the same as the template, where template categories are good. Sometimes, sort keys are also helpful to order the pages and subcategories in a category correctly; articles with too many or too few categories could also be tagged with cleanup tags. VickKiang (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise

@Atsme: If possible, could you give me some exercises? VickKiang (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Before you begin, read the Notability in a nutshell banner at the top of this page, study it and think hard about the message it's sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, don't hesitate to take action as you would normally do as a bona fide patroller.

I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. The articles I've chosen are unreviewed, but it is possible they will have been reviewed by the time you get to them, so try not to wait too long after I've added them. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary.

1. Boundless_(production_company)

@Atsme:
a) This article is in English, doesn't meet CSD criteria, nor has copyvios per Earwig.
b) The main problem is that WP:BEFORE search there are very few refs. but none of the refs seem to be meeting WP:NCORP. The Guardian ref is duplicated, covering the stocks of the previous company with a trivial mention of this. TBI Vision.com and deadline.com also seem to be trivial or routine.
c) IMHO this might be either be AfDed or restored as a redirect, although selective merging the reliable refs IMHO could be suitable. If not, notability and more citation needed tags are needed.
d) This is because that IMO the article fails notability. Also, one of the editor of the page is blocked, while another user who rm the redirect had a history of creating maybe non-notable pages. I've WP:BOLDly redirected this one, please comment if you disagree. VickKiang (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Why it is important to review the edit history. Also, see 2nd sentence of the lead. I would redirect, and if that same user removes the redirect, we restore and request protection. The reason we go with redirect is because AfD can be a battle, and the same editors who removed the redirect will likely be there arguing to keep and the closer will likely decide to redirect. IOW, the reviewer works to find the point of least resistance, but in some cases, that point does not exist because admins have the last word. Atsme 💬 📧 09:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Kolai (2021 film)

@Atsme:
a) I looked for CSD and copyvios first, this article does not meet the CSD criteria, per Earwig it was similar with this source, but that's because this article just lists the cast, it doesn't seem to be a copyvio IMHO, despite this sentence (produced under the banner of Infiniti Film Ventures in collaboration with Lotus Pictures) being the same. Though, after simple c/e the close paraphrasing is solved. It might need revdeling for this minor infringement, though I'm unsure.
b) The main issue is notability. The title saying it's a 2021 film, seems to be still in production. The article lacked any refs whatsoever, but I've added a couple. However, I don't have confidence that WP:NFILM or WP:GNG are met. The refs I found are RS, but are very general plot overviews along with quotes, or routine production details. WP:GNG requires significant coverage, and IMHO the 5 refs here none are SIGCOV. The same with WP:NFILM- it meets none of the other criteria for notability. Per WP:NFILM, this is an undistributed film, which states that Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. But this film's production isn't notable, except for these routine overviews and info on trailers.
c) IMHO I'd probably drafitify it as the topic might have more potential in the future, or restore the redirect.
d) IMO the article is probably WP:TOOSOON. The subject has good potential though it's a stub, so drafitifying or redirecting are good as it would be easier to create an article when the film is actually released, instead of AfDing or PRODing.
  • Another editor prodded after you tagged. But again - see edit history: Redirect was removed. Now that it is prodded, we wait to see if it gets removed. If it does, then we redirect. If redirect gets removed, we restore and ask for protection. Atsme 💬 📧 09:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Shows open log article menu

3.Vladas Knašius Basketball School

@Atsme:
a) The article is in English, doesn't meet CSD criteria, and there's no copyvios.
b) The article, listing non-notable results, seem to be extremely poor. This one has a notability tag and is on the fence. The first ref seems to be trivial, sadly. The second ref here is a very trivial mention of the school, mainly focusing on a graduate. Next, this ref seems to be a press-release like website, I couldn't find editorial policies, so I am not sure if it's an RS. Anyways, I don't think this counts to WP:NCORP. This is probably a RS newspaper, but it still could be routine, though I could see someone saying it could meet WP:NCORP as one ref, despite my disagreement. Besides, this ref could potentially be SIGCOV, but is just a two-paragraph coverage, the second mainly quotes, so it might not be significant. This ref doesn't cover the subject extensively to meet SIGCOV, same with this short mention. So, with a lot of the refs being borderline in SIGCOV, if it's the more lenient WP:GNG guideline there's a chance that it could meet it, but I'm iffy if it could meet WP:NCORP. More comments:
c) IMHO, given the concern in meeting notability, I'd probably add a notability tag and more citations needed tag, if another editor don't review in a few days or there's no improvement, draftifying or AfDing is a good option. Also, because the article covers non-notable alumini, IMHO possible stubifying and rm unsourced info might be good. I'd also add an advert tag.
d) The creator has created quite a few deleted pages, with this both previously CSDed and AfDed. The previous AfD rationale was that it was a non-notable basketball school with no sources used and very little information on the web. All that is linked on the article is the school's website and the school's league or conference it plays in. Nothing establishes notability or meets basic GNG. This doesn't seem to be the case here, as there are more refs, still, they don't meet WP:NCORP. I'll also add an advert-tag, here, The basketball academy is very notable in Lithuania and Baltics, with a huge list of well known alumni, such as Barcelona's Rokas Jokubaitis[2] and medal places in Lithuania season by season both in Male and Female categories, throughout different age groups.[3] The team plays in the MKL and third Lithuanian division RKL, there's puffery and external links. Given the previous deletions, and the limits of a Google search and possible more refs in another language, I won't AfD nor patrol it, instead, I'd probably leave it to a more experienced reviewer or see if more refs are found, if there aren't many in a couple of days, drafitify is slightly better, IMO, but this is a nuanced case. Still, IMO a notability and more citations needed tag are needed. VickKiang (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Scroll back up the page where I asked what steps you would take as a reviewer, and read my comment. Now you know the reason we follow that procedure, and why I designed this course the way it is. (Sidebar question: In the image I uploaded, do you have the same article menu? You won't have the curation bar until you are accepted as a reviewer but I cannot recall if that top menu is something I added or if all editors can see it.) Anyway, the article TP shows the article was deleted. As a reviewer, you should be looking for these things. Were there any significant updates after it was deleted? Who restored the article? Reviewers do much more than simply reviewing content – we investigate and make sure we are choosing the right course of action for that article because our actions have consequences. Go back and re-review these 7 articles again – update your comments – and follow the steps I recommended above in "steps you would take as a reviewer". Check the edit history & Talk page banner, use the page log, check user contribs so you will know the kind of editor you are dealing with, review the "actions" for that page and its history so will be more confident about whatever action you took. Editors who screw-up at NPP risk losing more rights than just having the curation tool, so it is always better to be safe than sorry. Atsme 💬 📧 10:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • 👍 Like Looking good.

4.Sala Sporturilor (Mioveni)

a) The article is in English, doesn't meet CSD criteria, nor does it have copyvios.
b) The main concern is still notability. I've added three refs, though the article is still borderline. Ref 1 is a photo gallery and mainly quotes in text, so it's probably non-SIGCOV. The routine construction info from ref 2 also isn't meeting SIGCOV, IMHO. Ref 3, with an entry in the Romanian Wiki, is RS. Whether it meets SIGCOV is iffy, IMO, without the quote, there are 167 words, which might just be meeting the one long paragraph guideline on WP:AfC or the essay that 100 words is needed for SIGCOV. The article gives some info on the facilities, but is mostly routine, sadly. The fourth ref, Gazeta Sporturilor, is a well-known newspaper, and is probably the only ref that IMO just meets SIGCOV. Per the WP:GEOLAND guideline: Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. So the requirement is similar to WP:GNG, with no more refs I can found per WP:BEFORE except trivial mentions and routine releases, even if we generously assume these two refs are RS that are SIGCOV, it's still borderline. Though, IMO only one ref counts as in-depth, significant, reliable, and independent. Also, it's sadly a stub that's too short to be encyclopedic.
@Atsme: c) So, IMO I wouldn't mark this as reviewed, I'd probably tag a notability tag, more citation needed, and stub tag, if there aren't much improvement over a week, I might draftify this, or leave the finall decision to another NPP. P.S: I know the article is in bad shape, though I'm not sure about the CSD G11, it doesn't appear to be unambiguous advertising IMHO? VickKiang (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
d) This is because the article fails notability and is a substub, it identifies the subject in a single-sentence mention but not much else, even if it's notable, it still requires a fair amount of work. Per user page, the articles created were continuously moved back to draftspace, with concerns for its notability. Note, a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sala Polivalentă (Blaj) was also deleted due to concerns for notaiblity and WP:TOOSOON. IMHO, this also supports the tag and possible draftification.
  • checkY Safe response. As you gain more hands-on experience, you will acquire more confidence. I reviewed the refs and what we have here is a new sports stadium where there were none before, and it has drawn some local excitement. I went with G11, promotion. Now we will see what the Admin decides. Atsme 💬 📧 11:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Update - This is why we get frustrated when determining which CSD an acting admin will be able to best understand. I see it as promotion of a new stadium that is not notable, and if that admin had read the sources, they too would have seen it as promo. Had we tagged it with an A7, it might have been deleted, so I have queried the acting admin. Of course, each admin sees things differently, which puts NPP reviewers at their mercy. I still haven't figured out why an admin has any more knowledge about what constitutes a notable article than any other editor, especially when dealing with editors who have acquired training, experience or have expertise in certain topic areas. It goes back to "volunteerism" and consensus. Atsme 💬 📧 12:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Update – VickKiang, the response. I'm of the mind that something needs to change, because that result basically makes our work useless, and a tad frustrating because of the research we did in order to derive at such a conclusion. I understand the importance of an admin having the last word in a CSD as we do not want a horde of untrained NPP reviewers deleting articles, (not every reviewer signs up for NPPSCHOOL). Perhaps a bit of unbundling could be considered to extend deletion bit to our most qualified NPP reviewers. Admins should not be involved with content anyway, and NPP reviews are about content. Atsme 💬 📧 13:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
a)The article is in English, doesn't meet CSD criteria, nor has copyvios (though an initial G12 was declined).
b) Though, its current refs fail WP:GNG, which are routine plot summaries and press releases-like short articles, this is the longest but is non-RS. Not much else in Google, but I found additional links in Chinese (1, 2, 3, 4), but these seem to be the definition of routine plot overviews.
c) Therefore, none of the refs seem to meet WP:GNG (WP:NEPISODE might also be applicable though it's an essay), but as this hasn't be released yet, IMHo it could be draftified, if not, a tagging of notability, more citation needed, and possible c/e is needed (intriguing world of Republican Shanghai and modern era seems to be puffery)
d) This is because that the article is on an upcoming program with potential notability, so it has some merit, though the current aritlce doesn't meet notability requirements. Though, c/e is needed because of the poor writing mentioned above that initially almost was CSDed under G12. The editor also had a couple of other copyright infringements, so IMHO caution is needed for future edits, this article also looks a bit interesting, so I might also watchlist so that I can track any future potential copyvios.

6.Demon Queen

a) Article doesn't meet CSD guidelines, copyvios, and is in English.
b) My assessment mightn't be accurate, but IMHO this is quite borderline in notability. This article doesn't have copyvios per Earwig, nor does it meet CSD criteria. It mainly describes a duo and their discography. I don't think it meets any of the WP:NBIO guidelines, so do this band meet WP:GNG? The Popmatters review goes into decent detail about the album and the performers. Surprisingly, it has an article at PopMatters, same with Tiny Mix Tapes, which seem to be SIGCOV, and is probably RS with a WP page. The Exclaim website is too short to be SIGCOV, neither is it RS, IMHO. The NY Times, while RS, seem also to not be SIGCOV.
c) Hence, with optimistically just 2 refs counting towards GNG, this one is borderline (multiple needs 2 or more), I'd probably not review this as my first patrol action, but might patrol this with a tagging of notability. Still, I might tag for more citation needed, maybe expand the lede, and probably rm the YouTube ref.
d) This is because the borderline notability as mentioned above. If this turns out to be a notable topic, a more citations tag is needed. Despite its shortness, the lede, at 1 sentence, could be expanded a bit, IMHO. As YouTube is an unreliable SPS per WP:RSP, it could probably be removed. The editor doesn't have many contributions, but also created Maximum Love, I couldn't find AfDs, ping me if otherwise. VickKiang (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • (sidebar note) It appears you may be misunderstanding WP:SIGCOV just a little bit, or I should say nuances of it...but you understand the technical aspects well, so I will bold underline the relative parts that may inspire the nuances if you want to discuss further: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. All it takes is one source to satisfy "directly and detail" for NOR and V, and then GNG kicks-in. We can "stack" multiple RS to satisfy "depth" when a single RS is insufficient. Multiple RS can be 3 sources, and stacking can include passing mention if the cited source is an article about it as we discussed with the GEOLAND articles. Also, if the passing mention is a reference/citation to or quote from our article. Again, we draw on our critical thinking skills and what actually constitutes significant, multiple, in-depth and detail. Our guidelines simply guide us, but they cannot possibly cover every aspect of what constitutes notable, or worthy of being noticed. As you know, notability is nuanced, and as reviewers we need to focus more on the nuances because we are making important decisions that affect the project and the article creators. We are the next-to-the-last decision makers, and in some instances the last who decide if an article gets included; and that is a pretty important role, 2nd only to administrators/arbitrators. Atsme 💬 📧 13:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: Sorry for my answer, which is a bit vague. I know it's that only usually is multiple refs needed, per here, "Sources"[3] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[4] But like you said, there are certainly examples when one ref could satisfy WP:SIGCOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, as multiple source are just generally expected. In this example, apologies for my unclear wording. VickKiang (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
VickKiang, please see the follow-up of Demon Queen. Atsme 💬 📧 13:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

7. Central Punjab

a) The article doesn't meet CSD criteria with no copyvios, it's in English.
b) Main concerns are notability and its shortness (substub). Sadly, I couldn't any legal recoginition, so per WP:GEOLAND, Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. However, it seems that GNG is not met, the current refs are trivial mentions (there are also more few-word mentions on Google Book, such as 1) make it hard IMHO to make a start class article that is verifiable.
c) Therefore, IMHO I'd probably AfD or drafitify this would be great, but I wouldn't patrol this. I'd probably, despite the university linked, have a quick mention of it with refs here if it's drafitified, if AfD turns out to be kept, a stub tag and WikiProject adding as stub are good.
d) This is because the failed notability guidelines for WP:SNG per above. As this is clearly a stub (per Rater), if the article survives AfD or draftification is objected, IMHO stub tags should be added, addition to WikiProjects if so is also good for navigation purposes. I did some minor c/e, though the editor is very experienced, a lot of non-notable pages were created, I'd maybe leave an explanation about SNGs to the user. VickKiang (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Draftify might be a good choice if the author intends to expand the region as a Fork of Punjab. It could also be redirected to Punjab because everything in the reviewed article is in the main article, with 5 mentions of "central Punjab" as follows:
  1. Lahore emerged as important city of Central Punjab in 10th century.
  2. Multan province consisted of southern Punjab and few central punjab regions, ...
  3. With Northern and Central Punjab facing much lower levels of poverty than Western and Southern Punjab. Not sure about the upper case useage of northern, central, western and southern.Atsme 💬 📧 15:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  4. University of Central Punjab, Lahore - is listed in the section Private Universities
  5. According to Manzur Ejaz, "In Central Punjab, Punjabi is neither an official language of the province nor it is used as medium of education at any level.
@Atsme: Sorry again for my bad first reviews, I've added more info. Apologies:) VickKiang (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • No need to apologize – this course is about learning how best to do a review. You are expected to make mistakes, which is why I am here. What I am hoping you will take away from these exercises is a deeper understanding of the BIG question: what, beyond the fact that something exists, makes it notable? If you have to struggle to find the answer to that question, then trust your judgment, but keep in mind that lack of coverage is not the end-all in some situations – critical thinking is a big part of reviewing. Referring back to geographic features...why would an obscure lake that is nationally protected and named be note worthy? In the case of the lake stubs that survived the mass AfD attempt, they passed on the technical aspects of GEOLAND, but what makes them truly notable is the fact they are (a) natural lakes formed by glaciers, not man-made, and they are an important aquatic ecosystem located in a relatively pristine area. And why is that a big deal? One of my areas of expertise is conservation, environment & endangered species so I will present a perspective you may not have considered: aquatic ecosystems are dependent upon the balance in nature and without it, the impacts could prove devastating. Within each ecosystem are keystone species which are basically the canaries in the coal mine. If you can find a little extra time, read Nat Geo's article. This is why I emphasize the banner at the top of this page. A simple Google search is not always adequate when we know something is truly notable, and expect to easily find RS. Notability is not always about media coverage, so there are definitely times when we should IAR and accept WP:V as being most important, and exercise more lenience about coverage, and what we consider "trivial mention", etc. Atsme 💬 📧 11:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • On second thought - let's do 5 more reviews.

Reviews, cont.

1. Park lots

a) The article doesn't meet CSD criteria, there is also no copyvios, and the article is in English.
b) The main concern is again notability. Ref 1 and 2 are clearly non-RS, one a blog and another a niche project. Ref 3, despite seemingly being non-RS, is from University of Toronto, so it's an RS. Sadly, it mentions Park lots in a few sentences, along with a couple of other trivial mentions, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG (I don't think any of the WP:GEOLAND criteria apply, at best it could be related to infrastructure, which states Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles or to a named natural feature that prompted their creation, e.g., to an article about the notable road it carries or the notable obstacle it spans.
c) So, with none of the refs being RS, significant, and independent, not even borderline notability is met. I've tried to Google more results, but unfortunately failed to find anything more in a WP:BEFORE search. Hence, I'll AfD the article (I might ping you when I start the AfD). The article also needs some c/e, I've done one where its period isn't correct. As it's a stub, it would probably need a stub tag and assessing to the relevant WikiProject as a stub, I'd also tag a notability tag before starting the AfD.
d) The AfD is because the article clearly fails notability requirements. Stub tags usually are definitely needed because of the article's shortness, below 250 words or 1500 characters. If the article turns out to be notable, I'd still tag a more citations needed but rm the notability then. Also, the editor of this page has been blocked for adding unsourced content, which IMHO supports an AfD for this page. VickKiang (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Atsme 💬 📧 01:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I knew this was a bit of a tuffy, but you did right by going to GEO first. It is not infrastructure because it was not built - they are plots of land. The article itself is history, and indirectly deals with geography; liken it to a socioeconomic issue with political undertows. I suggest a PROD because that user is under an indef block. It is an unremarkable (non-notable) geographic plot of land. The history may have some merit for inclusion in the city article, but as it sits now it is about the land plots. That user was spamming us with non-notable, poorly sourced to non-sourced articles which is why they were blocked. Atsme 💬 📧 21:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Adding: Socky, socky 22:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Fahmaan Khan

a) The article doesn't meet the CSD criteria and is in English. Per Earwig there's close paraphrasing, but not a copyvio.
b) I again have concerns about the article's notability. The article currently cites a few refs from the Times of India, which per WP:RSP is marginally reliable, though RS on WP:ICTFSOURCES, even if they are RS, they are routine releases (mainly just quotes from the actor), whereas ref 2 is a video. A Google News source shows loads of refs from Tellychakker (1), Bollywood Life, Filmibeat, which are all generally unreliable on WP:ICTFSOURCES, and are celebrity gossipy sites. Also lots of refs from Zoom (1), just to give one example, another site appearing to be non-RS. Because of the WP:BEFORE search revealing clearly non-RS and that noen of the current refs are SIGCOV (even its RS status is doubtful), IMHO this doesn't meet GNG. Per WP:NBIO, The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series), the actor has appeared in some just notable shows, but he wasn't the star or director, except for this, Imlie, where he was one of the stars for a couple of seasons, so IMHO this is borderline.
c) Considering the borderline notability, I'd personally not mark this as reviewed. IMO it's a good idea to merge/redirect some usable RS info into one of the main shows the actor was involved (draftify might also be good), though I'm not sure this should be WP:BOLDly merged and redirected, so maybe an AfD could be an option, if no editor has marked it as reviewed in a few days. Still, I'd add a notability tag and more citations needed tag. The paraphrasing should also be removed, and a stub tag should be added.
d) Per my analysis at b), I don't think GNG is met, but NBIO is more borderline. To be safe, I'd personally like to see if another more experienced NPP review it in a few days, though if there isn't much action, IMHO merging/redirecting, either boldly or through an AfD, is good. Also, since the page has a substantial history with lots of pageviews, this could be a common search term, so I prefer this to outright deletion or draftification. The borderline notability warrants the notability tag, there might be more refs in Hindi as well or maybe in newspaper archives, so a more citation needed tag is suitable. Because of the around 10% chance of copyvio, I'd still like a minor reword, though it's by no means a copyvio. Per Rater, there's 54% chance of Start, but the article just has 52 words, 250+ is needed for start, so I'd like a tag. Lots of new editors worked on this article, the creator had a history of copyvios and non-notable articles, which supports my decision. VickKiang (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY You tagged correctly, but I went ahead and added "relies largely or entirely on a single source" which is an iffy source at best. WP has become a sweet spot for Asian films/tv, and considering their combined populations are in the billions, it behooves me to think about how NPP will be able to handle all the films, tv shows, sports, music, etc. coming at us from around the globe. Hopefully we can keep the bots away, or at least limited. m( Atsme 💬 📧 13:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

3. Keya Payel @Atsme:

a) The article doesn't meet CSD criteria, has no copyvios per Earwig, and is in English.
b) IMHO, the main issue is, once again, notability. IMO, refs 1, 3, 8, and 11 lean on the shorter side with mainly quotes, but it might be SIGCOV, and most are decent news refs. Though, all of the rest are either trivial coverage, interviews, or quotes, similar stories were also frequently reported. I'm not confident that any of these refs could safely and without much dispute be significant, independent, and reliable, IMHO, only these four might be so, but I'm not confident that WP:GNG is clearly met. Same with WP:NBIO, the guideline we're looking at is The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). She has starred frequently, which received (mostly routine) coverage, but none of these has WP articles and seems to be an "independent and notable" work.
c) Due to the problem with meeting NBIO and GNG, which might be open to interpretation in this case, I don't think I'll mark this patrolled with my first patrols. I'd probably tag notability, ask the creator on user talk to see if more refs could be found, and start a discussion on its talk page. I'd also add a stub tag and watchlist it for seven days; if there aren't responses to my user talk and talk discussions, nor more refs are found, IMHO I might either drafitify the page or AfD it.
d) Because of the notability issues raised above, as I said, I don't think I'm confident to review this; instead, I'd tag notability for now. There are lots of refs, and some are promising, but sometimes the refs are trivial that the article seems to rely on WP:LOTSOFSOURCES sometimes based on my POV. So, tagging and starting discussions seem to be safer options; seven days is the run time for AfD discussions; if another patroller hasn't reviewed this or AfDed/PRODed this, with no replies in discussions, an AfD might be suitable for a wider discussion, or a drafitification. The stub tag is because the article doesn't meet the 250-word mark, this assessment is shared by Rater, and if it turns out the article is reviewed or survives the AfD, IMHO, that would be great for categorisation and for other editors to expand/improve the article. Sidenote: This editor had a history of creating articles that aren't notable, so this might support a drafitification or AfD should there be no replies or improvements in a couple of days. VickKiang (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

4. Super Yolanda

a) The article is in English, doesn't meet CSD, with no copyvios per Earwig.
b) I'm concerned with two aspects of the article. Firstly, the notability is unclear, there are 5 refs, but a) they report the same thing, b) not all of the news articles are devoted only to the Super Yolanda, covering the 14-year-old boy who was involved in the accident with this firework, along with reporting on general injuries and others. This and this are among the longer articles, but, as they don't cover the subject for its entirety, whether it meets WP:GNG is debatable (as this article is talking about a firework, I don't think WP:NEVENT is applicable). Generally, though, I have concerns about WP:NOTNEWS. All of the refs are posted within the same few days with each other, and the accident doesn't appear to have a lasting impact, probably violating what WP is not.
c) Because of both my concerns about notability and that it meets what WP is not, and no more RS that are SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE search, I would not mark this as reviewed. I personally prefer an AfD, but it might be safer to draftify it. Also, the article should probably be added a WikiProject tag should it survive AfD or isn't draftified, the article could be expanded a bit, but not too much as if so WP:NOTNEWS is even more violated.
d) The AfD is because the failure of notability and not news per above, though, draftification might be the safer option as some articles might be in Flipino (which I can't find per my Google and News search). The editor had a couple of articles draftified and deleted, which also supports my decision (looking at page history, the editor mistakedly added a GA template, probably not knowing what it's for, although that has been quickly reverted). VickKiang (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

5. Papalaya

a) The article, despite being promo-like, doesn't meet CSD criteria, is in English and has no copyvios.
b) It seems very clear that the article has two main problems: the promo-like tone (I've trimmed it) and the failed notability. On notability- refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, are either unreliable or non-independent, ref 6 doesn't look like RS but links to El Nuevo Día, but it's non-SIGCOV, WP:BEFORE search reveals no more refs. Second, the article, before my minor c/e, was promo-like with puffery; see its history.
c) Due to the concerns, I'd c/e the article to rm puffery (already done), tag notability, and then AfD or PROD it, because the clear notability concerns. If the article somehow survives AfD, I'd rm the external links from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and tag more citations needed.
d) This is because the article clearly fails notability. The editor is currently blocked for COI and UPE; the article is also tagged for UPE, evident from the puffery that is mostly removed, though IMHO, despite the article's ref indicating promotion, it doesn't seem to meet CSD G11 (if I nom this, an admin would probably decline), though I could see someone else nom this for G11. Either AfDing or PRODing is good; I chose the former because the PROD might be challenged, and AfD might be the safer route to take, but if this is PRODed I'd endorse it (2nd PROD template). As said above, the external links are excessive and should be rm, even if this is kept somehow; a more citation tag would be reasonable as none of the current refs is usable. VickKiang (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
checkY Excellent!! I came up with the same exact reasoning, and went ahead and prodded it. I am very pleased with your approach and how much you have improved. Even if we do not agree on some of your choices, I cannot fault you on them because then it becomes a matter of opinion. Please go back through my comments above, some of which I pinged you, and wrap everything up before I archive. Atsme 💬 📧 14:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme:  Done all of these, if you could check if would be great! VickKiang (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Evaluation

VickKiang has completed this course, and has demonstrated professionalism, collegiality, and an advanced level of knowledge about WP:PAGs. By the end of the review exercises, he had developed an above-average approach to his reviews, demonstrating excellent critical thinking skills in his final evaluations. He will keep getting better with experience, if it is even possible to improve upon excellent. It was an honor for me to work with Vick, and it pleases me greatly to say, as of this day, 2022-09-08, VickKiang is a top honor graduate of NPPSCHOOL. Atsme 💬 📧 14:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Tips

  • Wikipedia:New pages patrol is the foundation on which we operate. Add the link to your bookmarks menu for easy access.
  • 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:Headbomb/unreliable - another useful tool that grades sources using highlight colors
  • 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.
  • User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool

Userbox

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

This User went through the rigors of WP:NPP school and graduated!!

VersaceSpace

checkY Passed September 13, 2022
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Notability in a nutshell

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.



Welcome New Trainee!

Instructions: VersaceSpace, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.

Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please let me know you completed it by pinging me from this session page.

Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP:PAGs as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part so we can discuss your responses or any questions you may have before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.

Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace.

It may seem overwhelming 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 cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 21:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

  • Notability
    • This page states a variety of things, but the importance of the page is that it describes what merits an article here and what does not. And quite simply too: It meets a notability guideline, and it agrees with the English Wikipedia's goals. The page also notes that fame is not a metric of notability, which is especially relevant where I intend to do probably the majority of my patrols (albums and songs). The GNG states that a subject probably merits an article if there exists substantial coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Subject-specific notability guidelines exist too, and most of them go off the GNG, except they use a presumption that coverage exists due to an achievement that would likely generate it (this person was important in their field), (this album entered a national chart), (this guy failed to qualify for the Olympics, let's make that a stub!). NCORP is the only one that's different, as far as I'm aware. The most important part of this page is the GNG, in my view, since it's the catch-all. Of course, as a NPP reviewer, I would look at SNGs before tagging for notability problems, which seems to have been an issue in the past. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY A bit of clarity for this very nuanced guideline to make sure we are on the same page – you said "fame is not a metric of notability" – the paragraph in N states (my bold underline): Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity–although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. IOW, fame, importance, or popularity do factor in, and make a standalone a little easier to be accepted, but notability is not dependent on them, which begs the question, if a subject/topic is none of those things, why would we expect them to be covered in multiple RS? Think WP:IAR and note worthy/worthy of being noticed but for whatever reason, failed to get attention. That is when NOR and V kick-in, and requires some critical thinking skills as to where a reviewer would look to find coverage that satisfies NOT, V, OR while still meeting GNG/SNG. WP:PAG leaves it up to editors to use their discretion, and that is where we often get into trouble at AfD. You will begin to see that perspective more often when we get into the live exercises. This portion of the tutorial prepares you for it. Oh, and for a little different perspective relative to how consensus works, I invite you to read The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta authored by one of our own admins...my favorite part being the hegemony of the asshole consensus. ^_^ Atsme 💬 📧 11:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • General Notability Guideline (GNG)
    • What I get from reading this guideline is that a subject usually merits an article on Wikipedia if it has received substantial coverage in reliable sources. The "usually" means that nothing is guaranteed by this guideline, and there could be other reasons why an article should not exist (this is only judgmental of notability and not any other reasons a topic might not need an article). It's a core part of Wikipedia's PAGs, for more than one reason. We'd be a sad spammy mess without it. I've never come across a user who disagreed with this guideline, but the meaning of each individual word is constantly in dispute ("Presumed notability" being questioned after a recent ARBCOM case, how much coverage is significant coverage?, and the debate on reliable sources, politically at least, is a whole rabbit hole we do not need to get into). This means that New Page Reviewers need not only to understand this guideline, but to follow what the consensus is when it comes to small parts of the guideline. This is a guideline where I couldn't tell you a part that is most important, because every bulleted word below the statement is so necessary. —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY To say it is nuanced would be an understatement. Experience will teach you the different sides of "presumed" and "usually" relative to exclusion and inclusion, both of which NPP reviewers are held to account and why it is important to give inclusion and deletion equal air time. A perfect example recently took place: this article was the subject of a question posed by a newly graduated NPP trainee. The article ended up at AfD. If you study the comments and volunteer efforts, it demonstrates how good collaborations work despite resistance. The notability was clear (to me) after I arrived at the article and did WP:BEFORE, which is critical to being a reviewer, but then it all reflects back on the limits of volunteerism. None of us are going to be 100% accurate in our AfD stats or page curation log because (a) consensus plays a big role, and (b) it is a subjective process. The least we can do is, our best, and that includes taking the time for WP:BEFORE, and by applying critical thinking in an effort to give each article we review a fair and reasonable chance. NPP is a very important part of the process, 2nd only to administrator. When we become a member of the NPP team, we are assuming a substantial obligation as the last line of defense in keeping junk out of the pedia. We play a significant role in determining what will or will not be accepted after AfC, and now both AfC and NPP are combined. Atsme 💬 📧 12:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)
    • Specific notability guidelines were created through topic area consensus, and judge when articles should be made, when it can be assumed that sources for a subject exist, and good sources in relation to a topic area. Some of these even differ from the GNG. GEOLAND establishes that notability exists as long as a place can be verified (although this is also a presumption of sources existing, AFAIK). Certain WikiProject notability guidances have not been vetted by the community and therefore are not technically guidelines. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    • An issue with many articles about corporations was that much of them were based on press releases and blog posts, so this page makes it clear that multiple instances of coverage in reliable sources are required. And the prose of the reliable sources needs to be their own, and nothing from the corp. There's a table in the link, describing which kinds of sources are unusable/whether or not they contribute to the GNG which is very insightful, and I think that's the most important part of that page. NMUSIC will be what I make the most use of, however. My main area of editing is music and I don't really plan to change that if I get the NPP perm (though I won't avoid other types of articles). —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY I think basically for NMUSIC, we need avoid the little garage bands and non-notable cult-like niche music that are basically fads and fail WP:10YT. I am not saying that an article about the various cult-like niche music does not warrant an article; rather, I am referring to the little garage bands and the little cottage industry that springs up around it, and then disappears with the next new fad. Perhaps editors older than 3 decades can see that more readily over time than our younger editors relative to the 10YT. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:RS
    • I consider "multiple" reliable sources to be at least three, I can accept two if the two sources go very in depth. But it's hardly cut-and-dry. I wouldn't consider one paragraph to count as a full source, although I would consider five or six of those to be a WP:BASIC pass. Onto what qualifies as a reliable source... I just use WP:RSP. If it's not listed there, I'll judge the source on my own (About pages and such) or check the WP:RSN archives. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY 💯 - we use our good judgement and common sense. We can also stack sources per the following example: when considering "passing mention" or "brief mention", we can cite published studies that include a list of say, named geographic features potentially impacted by climate change within a specific study region. If one of the features on the list is a standalone WP article, the source can be cited to demonstrate notability/importance of that geographic feature by including the material about the potential impacts. Keystone species, aquatic ecosytems, the canary in a coal mine, etc. are all common sense notable topics, but may not necessarily pass GNG relative to multiple, in-depth coverage, and that is why we have SNG but also IAR. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
    • The initial step is to see if the article meets WP:GNG (unless the article is about something covered under WP:GEOLAND). If the subject doesn't meet the guideline upon viewing the article's refs, I will do a quick search on Google, or a newspaper archive depending on what the article is about. If there's no indication that the subject meets the GNG, I will check the applicable SNG and if the article isn't applicable, I would either tag for notability or seek a deletion.
    • If at a first glance, the article contains egregious spelling or grammar errors I would draftify and let the creator know. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Deferred basic flow chart and the longer chart which includes the step by step process of fully reviewing a new article. While I understand that you are not supposed to detail all of the steps, I do want to impress upon you that draftify is the last resort, and even then, we are discouraged from doing it. checkY Yes, we use GHITS, but if you're going to be a successful reviewer, you need to add WP:TWL, Internet archive, Gutenberg, and API for starters. You want your curation log to reflect good work. And again, refer to the Barbara Dawson BLP relative to your approach (which was added after you listed your initial steps). As you can see, we do some of the clean-up, and we contact the article creator pretty much before doing anything else. NPP is not a cakewalk, and it carries with it, a pretty big responsibility as I mentioned above. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

  • Assume good faith
    • Here it is: the guideline that's cited the most in discussions, and followed the least. As it relates to NPP training, it's very important not to assume malice when a new editor does something that could be construed as "stupid". It's always better to assume that an editor does not know the rules, unless you have good, citeable reason to believe otherwise. Of course, this rule being used too aggressively is a problem in itself, but as a rule of thumb NPPers should never cast aspersions against editors, go off of what's on the screen strictly. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Biographies of living people
    • BLPs...probably can be credited for half of Wikipedia's pageviews. I just made that up, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. Anyway, BLPs require more sensitivity and it is more urgent that these are correct since, you know, defamation and such. Lawsuits. Stick to encyclopedic stuff. We're not the Daily Mail. I would just avoid primary sources in these unless what it's sourcing is uncontroversial or reliable-from-the-source, like a relative or pregnancy announcement. Of course this (perhaps more importantly) applies to newly dead people as well. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages." Also, a good essay for determining N: User:DGG/bios
  • Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)
    • I would use the Twinkle template that tells them to stop editing until they confirm or deny whether they're paid/COI. If they continue editing w/o response, that's a report to COIN. Assuming good faith is still important, some editors may not even have a conflict of interest. Don't accuse, instead just push toward the direction where it becomes something worth addressing. Basic promotional material can be speedily deleted, of course, especially in mainspace where NPP does its thing. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY If editors that do not have a COI are also overseeing the page, it indicates less cause for concern. It is always best to discuss and AGF, especially considering WMF does not forbid PE. Atsme 💬 📧 11:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Copyright
    • Copyright violations are also a serious legal issue. This can occur in multiple forms. One is prose. Earwig is very good at solving this problem. Most new articles these days use only online sources which Earwig scans. Anything over 20% I would do a quick spot-check to ensure no word-for word violations. Offline sources, I would find an archive or entry on GBooks. If I cannot find the sources I will not review the article, I will not be the reason a copyvio goes unseen. The second form is images, which is usually easier to immediately spot. I would check the license and if it's appropriately tagged, GTG. As it relates to BLPs, a promo pic or picture obviously produced for mass release (like in a press release) will get more scrutiny. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY The curation tool lets us know if there is a potential copyvio, but it is better to check for yourself to make sure it is not a mirror or copied from the WP article – Wayback machine is very useful in these cases. Atsme 💬 📧 11:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Hoaxes
    • This one's much more simple. No hoaxes period, and a user caught doing this by me will be reported and the article will be nommed for SD. No excuse ever for these. Reading through an article's sources will reveal a hoax usually, and the ones that slip through the cracks usually occur because no one bothered to check. If all of the sources are offline and can't be found by me, I'll tag for hoax concerns, those tags are among the few that get resolved quickly. Assume good faith, of course, before a hoax is confirmed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Simple to know what to do but not always simple to detect. In fact, quite the opposite is true as evidenced here.
  • Attack pages
    • Articles that are very negative in tone and badly sourced will receive proper scrutiny, while still assuming good faith. G10 is the applicable criteria for speedy deletion, but sometimes pages that are "attack pages" in nature can display other useful information (whether intended or not) and therefore speedy deletion will not be accepted. In this case I would tag for neutrality. If I think a user has created an attack page, I would attempt to discuss and then perhaps report. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)

This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading

  • Discussions with creators of new pages
    • It's very important to remain civil while discussing with an article creator, especially the newer ones. WP:BITE and WP:AGF are important. Driving away a well-meaning contributor is almost never beneficial to the encyclopedia. If there are any issues with an article, I will make them clear to the creator. Be kind, but also be straightforward. There are ways to do this without offending the contributor. As a NPPer, it's important to display good faith. If the person on the other end of the discussion fails to be civil, or there is a problem with their editing they won't address, I would file a report at the appropriate noticeboard. If the article is good, show the creator some love. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss
    • Discuss if there's an issue which can be fixed with...discussion. I think this would put a better taste in the mouth of an editor than just speedily deleting without warning. It's important to ping editors if you're expressing a concern on the talk page of an article. Newer editors may not know what a watchlist is and are more prone to forgetting to add pages to it. I think all NPPers should have automatic notifications for replies on, and subscribe to any threads relating to patrols, because accountability is necessary. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
    • It's always important to maintain a positive tone when dealing with an article creator. Bad behavior or conduct in articles can be handled by filing a report at a noticeboard. When discussing with a creator, be concise, do not fill replies with fluffy opinions about WikiProcesses, that's for the Village Pump. State what the rules state, and apply that to the situation appropriately. Try not to be wrong when discussing potential problems, do research before responding, and make sure all your concerns align with PAGs. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikilove/positive comments
    • When an article creator does a good job, show WikiLove. Don't be too excessive about it, but thank the user for their contribution. If the editor isn't quite there yet, but is going in the right direction, show love and point them the right way. There's no need to be rude, ever. If the user is completely doing something wrong, WP:AGF, but the speedy deletion route might be required. Explain the user why you did what you did. Transparency is the right way, always. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Warning templates
    • First order of business, I would check if the user is a regular, because I don't like template-ing those. If the user is a regular, I'd make my own statement about the problems. For a new user, level-1 warns are cheap and do not imply malice on the part of the user. From that point on, issues may warrant a report. Issues like hoaxes and COI would probably be reported faster. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

  • Articles for Deletion
    • This is usually where articles go to die. Most deletions here are fairly uncontroversial, believe it or not. It's just the five-or-so controversial noms per week that look like a warground after they're closed. Now, as it relates to patrolling, any new editor who's subjected to seven days of discussion over whether or not their efforts are useless will probably shut off their computer and never log on to en.wikipedia.org ever again. Definitely not the preferred outcome. It's best to explore swifter options first, like discussion, or even speedy deletion since it at least hurts a bit less (I think). Equally important though is getting the rubbish out, so nominate if necessary, but be kind to the author. Exercise less kindness with experience editors, they should know better. But don't be rude either, and make sure to fulfill a BEFORE since an older editor may not have added all the sources they found. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    • As it stands right now, do BEFOREs whenever you intend to nominate an item for deletion. This is going to be discussed in that RfC though, so I'll be watching that to see what happens. I would prefer BEFORE to be a suggestion instead of a requirement, but it's important as an NPPer to follow the rules. Try to change the rules instead of disobeying them. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY I do the BEFOREs regardless, first checking for copyvio, then edit history to see if there are any red flags. The curation tool makes it easier, and serves as a guide as it lists potential issues. Atsme 💬 📧 10:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • PROD and BLPPROD
    • A deletion route purely for uncontroversial nominations. Most editors who create an article will be active enough dispute a PROD though, so a discussion should be had to gauge the author's opinion, and if they disagree don't even bother with the PROD. Move to AfD. If it fits the SD criteria, use that instead. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY One of the reasons BEFORE & using the curation tool is helpful. Once we know the history and habits of the editor (a simple check of their UTP) we can more easily make decisions. Atsme 💬 📧 10:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:Soft delete
    • Soft deletion occurs at the AfD venue when a supposed discussion has no discussion, and therefore no opposition. It's treated as a PROD. This means an author can request that an article be restored, so watch out to see if that happens without the problems being resolved. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:SOFTSP
    • This is when we redirect from our project to a sister project. Ex: If someone made an article on the definition of "preparation" (definitely not something that has ever happened), we would redirect that to Wiktionary. Make sure the sister project actually has an entry first, of course, although usually they do. I don't think we would ever link to WikiNews because 1) they're never up-to-date anyway and 2) Wikipedia covers news despite WP:NOTNEWS, which is something we've all come to accept. Links to WikiVoyage are probably rare too as most vacation spots will be notable in their own right (and because of GEOLAND, the enemy of any deletionist)[Joke]. Wikispecies links also probably don't happen, because every species get an article here. So yeah, I guess the gist is only link to Wiktionary and perhaps Wikiquote. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY It actually has happened, and why I started adding it to my tutorial. I don't know why the prevailing view is that redirects are cheap. Perhaps those who believe it are not NPP reviewers dealing with thousands of redirects on a daily basis. Atsme 💬 📧 10:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy Deletion
    • These are the criteria for an article to be deleted via SD, which are fundamentally different than the usual reasons (has to be definite, cannot be debated). This does happen in the work of an NPPer a lot, and sometimes it can be controversial, so exercise care. I've seen people lose the user right over this. Try to discuss with the author first before using speedy deletion, unless it's unambiguous promotion and the editor has a promotional name, which I would report. Usage of some other criteria will be accompanied by reports as well. Sometimes it goes beyond good faith (obvious cases). —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY A pet peeve of mine is that in cases of CSD, when an experienced reviewer knows an article warrants a speedy or a PROD, but the acting admin rejects it. I asked one admin why he rejected what was obvious promotion of a new stadium, (a two sentence stub cited to promotional announcements of the new stadium that was just completed). Long story short, the response was that they do not check sources, so if it is a 2 sentence stub with a citation or 2, they will not delete it and have no objection to us taking it to AfD (so we can waste 7 days of our time explaining why it should be deleted). I'm of the mind that an admin's decision should weigh heavily in the direction of NPP, and take action accordingly. Another discussion about this very topicl:
  1. June 2022 suggestion
  2. Praxidicae responded
  3. My response
  • I'm of the mind that, unless an admin is an experienced or trained NPP reviewer they should not be deciding content issues...or perhaps the community could consider unbundling some of the tools and allow NPP the ability to act on a CSD. For example, the initial reviewer tags it for CSD, and another experienced reviewer either agrees or rejects it. What are the chances of that happening? 8)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

  • Improvement Tagging
    • The problem with improvement tagging is that it usually just piles up in its respective category instead of actually being resolved. Seriously, we have "additional citation" tags from over a decade ago, although that's a less urgent one. Tag if needed, but try to deal with the issue yourself first. Hoax and promo concerns should just be immediately handled instead of waiting for someone else to do it. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Excellent response!
  • Categorizing
    • Tagging for categories, in my opinion, is just lazy. Fix the problem, it's not like categorization is something that needs to be done by an expert. Look up categories and add them to the article. If an author forgets to do this, let them know the problem and tell them how they can categorize their articles. No need to be rude, of course. It's not like uncategorized articles result in lawsuits, so if the only issue is this, show love to the creator. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise

Before you begin, read the Notability in a nutshell banner at the top of this page, study it and think hard about the message it's sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, don't hesitate to take action as you would normally do as a bona fide patroller.

I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. The articles I've chosen are unreviewed, but it is possible they will have been reviewed by the time you get to them, so try not to wait too long after I've added them. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary.

1. Asdfghjkl

2. Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg

    • This redirects to a section of the parent game. I would agree that most game mods are not notable, so coverage in a parent article seems appropriate. Kotaku is a good source so this is GTG. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

3. Ron Underwood (musician)

4. List of Ugandan submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film

    • There are appears to be precedent for this type of article. See this. Problem: there is one item in the list. I'm stuck between a redirect and a keep. I think I would keep the list just because it's nearly guaranteed to generate more content as time goes by, unless Uganda stops making films that are submitted to the Oscars. Sources don't appear unreliable, and verify the content (how little that is). —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY My concern is the context of the article and that it focuses more on the international award, rather than on the Uganda submission(s). I would at least tag it, and/or add a bit more info about the current nom.

5. Pratik Sehajpal

  • @Atsme: I read your responses, and I'm done! The fifth one was deleted, though from what I saw prior to its deletion (a list of competition shows he was featured on for one episode) it appears to have been a good choice. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Continued exercises

6. Searching for a Land

  • I want to make sure that you are properly doing WP:BEFORE, checking for copyvios, reviewing the article history, and seeing what discussions are on the TP. And following the Flow charts, which includes tagging articles as part of the job. Is there a reason that you chose not to do any follow thru during this exercise? Of course, the curation tool will be providing some of the preliminary information for you, which is a big help.
  • @Atsme: Yes, I have a negative tendency to not mention things when they reach a positive result. No copyvios, although the current refs will need changing anyway. Speaking to the WP:BEFORE, when I said "no reliable sources" I meant on and off the article. Even a detailed search of 1972 results for "Searching for a Land" do not bring anything up. To be honest if this weren't a test I would nominate the article for deletion. By the way, should I ping you in each reply? Thanks —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

7. Manan Joshi

    • Here I'm a bit borderline. Not a fan of the Times of India sources which appear tabloid-y, but other sources exist. Four important roles which means he passes WP:NACTOR. I would keep this, although it's a bit rough around the edges. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: alright, these two are completed —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Good job! I marked them both reviewed. Searching for a Land never made the charts. The New Trolls were around back in the 60s, and opened some concerts in Italy for the Rolling Stones. I think your suggestion to redirect to the band was the best choice. Remember, do the proper BEFORE, and then be bold and do what you believe needs to be done. For the Manan Joshi BLP, I probably would have gone with Twinkle's tag {{Unreliable sources}}. The sourcing was really bad, and the BLP is just starting out as an actor, so questioning his notability was the right direction. In fact, looking at the article log, that BLP was notability tagged in January 2022, and was deleted on Jan 12, 2022 as G7, then in March it was moved to draft without leaving a redirect, and then created in main space on March 24th. It doesn't hurt to review the article's log, talk page, and edit history. I think one of the new tools you'll get as a reviewer will be a big help. Just look up at the top of the page opposite the page title and you will see in small text on the right side of the page the following wikilinks: History Log Filter Talk Page Notice NPP Flowchart It is a very handy tool.
  •  Passed the exercises, and the entire course! CONGRATULATIONS, VersaceSpace! -<-@ You've got all the makings to be a great NPP reviewer. I will write my evaluation below, and you can wikilink to it using a hashtag when you request the New page reviewer right at WP:PERM. Once you get the rights, feel free to add the userbox. Also check out the handy tools I listed below if you haven't already. Happy reviewing!!! Atsme 💬 📧 02:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Atsme: thank you so much. I really do appreciate that you handed me your time. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Evaluation

VersaceSpace has graduated from NPPSCHOOL after completing this NPP Tutorial and all the review exercises. VersaceSpace demonstrated a good understanding of relevant WP:PAGs, exhibited a studious and collegial demeanor, and clearly possesses the abilities necessary to be a proficient new page reviewer. It was an honor and a pleasure to work with this trainee. Atsme 💬 📧 02:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Tips

  • Wikipedia:New pages patrol is the foundation on which we operate. Add the link to your bookmarks menu for easy access.
  • 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:Headbomb/unreliable - another useful tool that grades sources using highlight colors
  • 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.
  • User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool

Userbox

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

This User went through the rigors of WP:NPP school and graduated!!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme/NPP_training/Archive_5&oldid=1115425162"