Jump to content

User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 6

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

User:IndyNotes

checkY Passed October 6, 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: IndyNotes, 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 (possibly more depending on your progress) 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 💬 📧 19:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Atsme. I am now familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool and read the tutorial.--IndyNotes (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Good - IndyNotes, you may begin the exercises, and when you complete all the sections in each Part, please remember to ping me. I will review your answers, and may or may not add a comment or two for discussion if deemed necessary...or perhaps just for fun. Atsme 💬 📧 16:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

IndyNotes, please let me know if you intend to take this course because if not, there are other students who want to sign up but I turned them down because I have already stretched my limit to accept 3 students in lieu of 2, and you are one of the 3. Please, acknowledge. Atsme 💬 📧 01:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Atsme. Part 1 is complete.--IndyNotes (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore does not accept content indiscriminately. Subjects of Wikipedia articles should be worthy of notice from multiple trustworthy third-party sources, and the information contained within the content must be verifiable. I recognize that most individuals and businesses do not qualify for a Wikipedia page. There are four main features I will look for regarding notability. First, I will determine whether the subject received significant notability. Although the topic need not be the main topic of a book or article, it must be more than a mere passing mention. I will especially value long profiles in tier-one editorial publications rather than reporting tied to a single event. There are countless scholars in the world and only the most significant qualify under Wikipedia policy. Second, I will determine whether the sources are reliable: whether they offer editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language, but must still be reliable. I would not tolerate sources using braggadocios language or including excessive detail about the wrong type of thing. Second, I will evaluate whether there are sufficient secondary sources. And, finally, I would look to ensure that the applicable sources are independent of the subject.
  • checkY On the surface, yes but notability is much more nuanced as you will discover during this course. Key words to remember: sum of all knowledge, worthy of being noted, attracting notice. Depth of coverage can come in various forms, such as a paragraph in multiple sources. Here is some food for thought: what exactly is passing mention, and what if that passing mention keeps showing up in multiple sources...isn't that attracting notice, or worthy of being noticed? Is it possible there is more to passing mention than what meets the eye? Aggregate sources may or may not tell us why a person, place or thing is worthy of being noted; therefore, if multiple sources mention a person's position/employment, or a geographic feature's specific location, it likely satisfies V but not N. To satisfy N, we need more information about the why that person, place or thing attracts notice. Atsme 💬 📧 01:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe strongly that notability is not the same as popularity. You could say that water is notable because it’s worthy of attention, but you would not call water “popular” or “famous.” Many obscure topics are considered notable as long as they meet the notability guidelines, and conversely many famous people or things are not notable. A mention in a Forbes article is not nearly enough. But an entire article specifically about a business or person in a well-known publication like Forbes or the New York Times is a good start. But even that likely isn't enough.
  • checkY For the most part, yes, and I really like your thinking here. Of course each case is different, and we certainly don't want to dismiss a notable topic that our readers will enjoy, (the sum of all knowledge). Refer to food for thought above...and remember, we have WP:IAR to fall back on if common sense and good judgment tells us something/someplace/someone is notable beyond what meets the eye. WP:NEXIST. Atsme 💬 📧 01:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
For some topics, SNGs (subject-specific notability guidelines) can be used in place of the general guidelines. These alternative criteria are based on consensus to allow for standalone articles that otherwise might not qualify. For example, academics can often qualify for a standalone article if they received a prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
A lot of people and company leaders think they’re notable when they are not. They believe they have the notability but they are merely quoted often. They're not the same thing. Most truly notable companies do not have to write their articles or pay someone to write them because editors have already done it. Notability is not temporary but a long-standing ability of the subject to attract attention based on its own merit.
  • checkY Let's talk about your comment, "merely quoted often". I'm of the mind that if multiple RS keep quoting the same person often, that is something worth investigating, because it is likely the person is notable. Companies, et al are where we can be more stringent, and stick more closely to the word than to the nuances of notability. Atsme 💬 📧 01:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
A mention of the subject's name in an article is not sufficient. A subject should be the primary topic of several reliable information sources to be considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. This is essentially the definition of notability, as any person or company that is the sole subject of multiple articles is, consequently, notable. I will look for at least ten solid references available before attempting to create a page. Multiple publications from the same source are considered one source.
  • checkY In part, but again, the nuances come into play here. We review on a case by case basis – a single book may well satisfy N, or it could be 2 in-depth articles in a magazine, or only 3 RS. How long is the article that it would need 10+ RS? Also be cautious about AP wires and the well-known online echo chambers. There is also the historic factor when there simply was no national news like today, no internet, etc. IOW, sources are limited, and authors/journalists/storytellers were not as free with words when having to type on a Smith-Corona typewriter...before IBM came out with the electric typewriter...and when printing presses had to set type. Atsme 💬 📧 01:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Basic Flow Chart
NPP flowchart
  • Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
I will ask myself if I can honestly answer any of the following examples about the brand: __________ was the first company/person to __________. Company/person is the only company or person to __________. Company/person invented the __________. These are the types of questions I will look for when deciding notability.
  • My fault for not being more clear – I want you to explain the steps you would take to properly evaluate an article to be reviewed? For example, you will read it first, check for copyvios, review the edit history to see if it was a previous redirect, etc. Adding a ping to make sure IndyNotes is still with the program. Atsme 💬 📧 22:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. First –
  2. Second –
  3. Third –
  4. Fourth –
  5. Fifth –
Ping me when you have completed the above, and proceed with Pt 2. Atsme 💬 📧 01:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, first I will look for whether the article has citations for its assertions and facts. Next, I will check the edit history of the article. It will be important to discern whether an edit to the article was made anonymously. If an edit isn't anonymous, I will check out the User's page to ensure no bias. Over time, a diversity of contributors will be beneficial. In general, approved articles will generally need a lead section that gives an easy-to-understand overview, a clear structure, balanced coverage, neutral content, and reliable sources.--IndyNotes (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY  Passed Pt. 1 – Please proceed to Pt. 2

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

Since Wikipedia generally allows anyone to edit, we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. I will consider using the User's talk page to address questions or concerns, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating. This is an important rule for everyone, including newcomers.--IndyNotes (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  • checkY Well stated!!

Pages about living persons must be made carefully with an eye toward how it may affect someone's privacy. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, so it is very important to avoid sensationalism or unfounded gossip. High-quality references are critical, and we should avoid all heated, arguable material about living persons, especially if it is unsourced.--IndyNotes (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  • checkY Your brevity speaks volumes – I like that!!

Conflicts of interest and undisclosed paid advocacy threatens the trust of Wikimedia’s volunteers and readers. It affects the neutrality and reliability of Wikipedia. Those with a financial conflict of interest, including paid editors, must refrain from direct article editing. And editors should disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which they are paid, including talk-page contributions.--IndyNotes (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  • checkY Nailed it!

Wikipedia policy forbids close paraphrasing and copying and pasting from most sources. I will not green-light the use of someone else’s words; that’s simply plagiarism. This includes close paraphrasing, where the words follow the source too closely. Because of its collaborative nature, Wikipedia must take extra care to avoid introducing plagiarism, in case others build their work on top of it. Large block quotations are less prevalent on Wikipedia than they are in academic writing. I will look to ensure that such quotations are summarized and paraphrased the main ideas.--IndyNotes (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  • checkY Nice!!

According to Wikipedia policies, "a hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real." Unfortunately, hoaxes appear to be increasing and combing them out in new articles is the first and most important line of defense. It is important for those reviewing new articles to ensure that material is verifiable to a reliable published source. If challenged, the burden is on the original author to prove the claims in the article. --IndyNotes (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  • checkY Well stated!

An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. If I find such a page, I will identify it for speedy deletion by prepending the db-attack template, and blank the page as courtesy. If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then I would delete the page and create an appropriate stub article in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person.--IndyNotes (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Excellent!!
Atsme, I am done with part 2.--IndyNotes (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)

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

  • Discussions with creators of new pages

I think it is important to be kind with new article creators, to assume good faith as much as possible, and to collaborate. If I think a page should be nominated for deletion, I will include in my nomination rationale a link to the applicable policy and/or guideline under which you are proposing deletion. This kind of thorough explanation is important. I will also discuss in my nomination rationale what attempts I made to look for sources and the results of my efforts.--IndyNotes (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

PROD offers a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion; it is a less time-consuming method than nominating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD), and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion. I will only use PROD if no opposition to the deletion is expected. If neither the strict speedy deletion criteria nor PROD/BLPPROD are applicable, but I think an article should still be considered for deletion, I will nominate it for removal on its merits through a deletion discussion held by the community at AfD.--IndyNotes (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

I believe it is critical to comment on content, not on the contributor. It's the edits that matter, not the editor. I will also strive to be concise and keep discussions focused. As noted already, I do not want to bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, I will assume it was an unwitting mistake and gently point out their mistake (referencing relevant policies and guidelines) and suggest a better approach. I will also seek to link abbreviations to assist newbies when they first appear in a thread. Additionally, proposals for improving the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors. Such proposals might include changes to specific points, page moves, mergers or making a section of a long article into a separate article.--IndyNotes (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Wikilove/positive comments

I am a very big advocate for positive comments. Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article, its subject, or its creator. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. And if I am not sure how to fix something, I feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions.--IndyNotes (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, I really appreciate general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding among wiki users, which is embodied in Wikilove. There doesn't seem to be a specific formula for using WikiLove, but it is important for helping users feel valued and in balancing out increasing criticism on Wikipedia.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Warning templates should be used sparingly and only for important warnings about an article or a user that cannot be shown using a more specific template. Less important comments should be put as regular text on the page's talk page instead.--IndyNotes (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  • checkY Yes, but keep in the mind that once you arrive at that UTP, and see that it is not problematic, it is a good thing to attempt to politely engage and offer assistance, or refer them to WP:Teahouse. We want to encourage new users to stay, learn, and keep helping to build the encyclopedia. Atsme 💬 📧 13:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Atsme — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndyNotes (talk • contribs) 13:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

Prior to nominating an article for deletion, I will always make sure any action I take is consistent with Wikkipedia policies and guidelines. As discussed above, I will keep in mind the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. I will also approach them with subject-specific notability guidelines. I'll also review whether the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion, or speedy keep. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, I will take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. And as discussed above, I will review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing, as well as the article's talk page for previous nominations or objections. Other helpful steps involve checking "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it's very important to consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, I will consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. And if an article has issues, I will try to first raise my concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag. Sometimes a topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, but can be merged or redirected to an existing article.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
As we know, unsourced biographies of living people (BLPs) are eligible for a special proposed deletion process, BLPPROD. To qualify, the article must contain no sources in any form which support any statements made about the person in the biography. I will make sure the article contains no sources in any form which support any statements made about the person, and consider finding reliable sources myself. Importantly, I will consider using another deletion process if I do not believe the article meets notability guidelines, or What Wikipedia is Not. As always, if there are any unsourced negative or contentious statements, I will remove them.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
As I understand it, soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted, but the article can be restored for any reason on request. In other words, soft deletion should be used whenever an article is in a state that does not merit inclusion, but when it could potentially be improved (through the addition of sources, rewriting, etc.).--IndyNotes (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic articles, like simple dictionary definitions, may be more appropriate on a sister project and not Wikipedia. In those situations I would likely use the transwiki process and delete the article from Wikipedia afterwards. Alternatively, I may redirect the word to a relevant article within Wikipedia. --IndyNotes (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is a useful tool to cull through the thousands of daily articles that are simply not appropriate enough to stick around for a typical hearing. On the other hand, improperly tagging an article as a speedy candidate leaves more work for users patrolling the speedy deletion category, and improper deletion by administrators causes poor relations with other users and often prolongs the situation by forcing a deletion review. Criterial for this are well-known: (1) nonsense, (2) test pages, (3) pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes, (4) recreations of deleted pages, (5) creations by banned or blocked users, (6) author-requested deletions, (7) pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, (8) pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose, (9) copyright infringement, etc. Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, I will consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Many of our admins want it to be blatantly obvious, which can be frustrating for reviewers who did the BEFORE and the proper research, but it is what it is. Just don't let yourself become discouraged or burned-out as a result. The prevailing view is that redirects are cheap - but in many cases they are most expensive option. I was just in discussion about a case (see my UTP) where a notable topic was draftified, returned to main space, redirected, etc. More volunteer time was wasted with the back and forth on that new article than would have been spent simply adding some prose, fixing MOS and making it a start. smh Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, I am done with part 4.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

I understand there is some debate about this practice of tagging pages for problems—some utilize this practice, while others think editors should instead fix the problems. But I see value in tagging pages for problems because editors cannot always correct problems themselves, and also promotes constructive dialogue that is the foundation of the Wikipedia community. The three main tags are "Cleanup," "Disputes," and "Inline cleanup."--IndyNotes (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • checkY Hopefully, our reviewers have time to correct simple things such as misspellings, and possibly even to find a RS to replace one that is not a RS. Otherwise, some of those articles sit in main space with those tags for years, and that is really not good for the project. I would rather see NPP review pages when they are not pressed for time...but then, I'm retired, so I'm seeing it from a slightly different perspective. Atsme 💬 📧 12:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I value categorizing because it provides important navigation on Wikipedia and assists readers in finding related pages. Of course, categories are not the only tool that accomplishes this, but it is an important one for it. Categories do not form a strict hierarchy or tree of categories, since each article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. This allows multiple categorization schemes to co-exist simultaneously. It is possible to construct loops in the category space, but this is discouraged.--IndyNotes (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Atsme. Part 5 complete.--IndyNotes (talk) 01:57, 2 October 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 is sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, please do not 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.

Ok, IndyNotes following is your list of articles to review. Atsme 💬 📧 15:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • IndyNotes - I had to review them as they got reviewed before you got to them. Unfortunately, there cannot be any lag from when I ping you to do the reviews of the 5 articles I pick, and when you actually do them. It has to be right then. My graduates are full of vim & vigor and are getting through our backlog like a chainsaw through a pine tree. I picked articles for you from the middle of the queue, and they are were already done. Ping me when you are ready and I'll pick the articles but you need to review them right then. Atsme 💬 📧 23:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, Atsme, here you go.--IndyNotes (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Atsme. Done with the new ones. You can see my tags on the articles themselves.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

1. List of Miss Supranational titleholders

First, I looked to determine whether the subject received significant notability. Although this topic is not the main topic of a book or article, it is profiled in several tier-one editorial publications. Second, I look to whether the sources are reliable: whether they offer editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. The sources here meet reliability guidelines, and there are sufficient secondary sources which are independent of the subject. However, this particular topic has twice been nominated for deletion before. We might normally accept a lengthy pageant titleholders list to its own article to save space in the main pageant article. But in this instance, the pageant has only few winners so far, the list adds no further detail, and the information is already present on the main page. In light of this, I would recommend proposed deletion (PROD) for uncontroversial deletion. --IndyNotes (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  • checkY Just an FYI – check for copyvio, which is something I do first. The curation tool will provide a notice of possible copyvio, and at that point you determine if it's simply a matter of rephrasing, which you can do rather easily, or tag it {{copyvio-revdel}}. Read WP:CV because copyright infringement is quite serious. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

2. Oblate Sisters of the Most Holy Redeemer

As always, I look first for notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. This topic does not appear to be the main topic of a book or article, nor is profiled in tier-one editorial publications. Indeed, this page offers only one questionable source. As it is currently, I would not approve this article. Instead, I would either flag it for needing more reliable sources, or recommend proposed deletion (PROD) for uncontroversial deletion.--IndyNotes (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  • checkY Note: we do not mark CSD or PROD as reviewed because they may be rejected. If it is an AfD nom, we mark as reviewed. Also check to see who created the article, look at their UTP for patterns of NN articles, reverts of PROD tags, and signs of UPE. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

3. Pop Player

As always, I look first for notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. The topic itself appears to meet notability guidelines, but it lacks reliable and independent sources. Since the article can be fixed through normal editing, it is probably not a candidate for AfD. I would consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article and first raise my concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag.--IndyNotes (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  • checkY Note: If it lacks sources, tag it for that reason; i.e. needs more sources, etc. Twinkle has almost all of the tags, but there are also inline tags at WP:TMV which includes top page tags, section tags, and inline tags. Keep it handy. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

4. Victor Ma

As always, I look first for notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. The article certainly meets the notability threshold, but it relies on just a few fairly unreliable sources, particularly blog entries. Since the article can be fixed through normal editing, it is probably not a candidate for AfD. I would consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article and first raise my concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag. --IndyNotes (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

5. A Maze

As always, I look first for notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. This topic does not appear to be the main topic of a book or article, nor is profiled in tier-one editorial publications. It also lacks reliable sources in sufficient numbers. I would recommend proposed deletion (PROD) for uncontroversial deletion.

  •  Possibly I tagged and draftified Draft:A Maze. In exercises 6–10, which will follow, I want you to go live and tag them, or do whatever you think you should do including CSD, PROD, AfD, fix, tag, find citations, etc.. You don't have to repeat what you looked for first in your summary for me as you have already established your routine but I do want you to check for copyvio which you can do using Earwig. IndyNotes, you can simply provide an overview of what you did and why. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

6. Aik Sitam Aur

This initially had a copyright issue but that was resolved, and I think the article now works.

  • checkY We don't have much choice when it comes to reviewing Indian television & film because most editors are not going to study the sources close enough to determine reliability, and even if they did, what can we expect at AfD? It is what it is, so we do our best and look for the blatant issues that would justify a redirect, merge, draftify or tag.

7. Shadow ministry of Peter Dutton I suggested that this be merged with the existing Shadow cabinet of Australia article.

8. Paap Punno Honestly, this one looks okay to go.

9. Pat Spencer (basketball) Spencer signed an Exhibit 10 contract with the Golden State Warriors, so he is not technically a member of the team and I do think has not met notability threshold.

10. Skip Shea This article appears to have been written/created by its subject.

 Passed the Exercises. Atsme 💬 📧 02:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

Congratulations, IndyNotes wine*<:o)!!!

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!!

Perfect4

checkY  Passed October 21, 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: Perfect4th, 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 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 💬 📧 19:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme! Just to clarify – I'm currently working on the Page Curation video and the NPP Tutorial; my next step after that is to start reading and summarizing notability guidelines, correct? And should I ping you after I finish summarizing each point or only for each part? Thanks, Perfect4th (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Each part. Atsme 💬 📧 15:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

Notability is whether a subject belongs in Wikipedia. Other sources determine notability – when multiple sources that are separate from the subject and reliable have decided something is notable and written about it, and it is not outside Wikipedia's scope, then Wikipedia can probably have an article on that subject. Notability is independent of Wikipedia; it has nothing to do with how well an article is written, and Wikipedia does not confer any notability. It is not evaluated by what sources are present in an article, but by what sources exist. Notability includes having had attention for a decent amount of time, and a subject doesn't become non-notable after having been notable.
The general notability guideline is a guideline that explains general criteria for determining a subject's notability; if a subject fulfills the criteria, it is probably a suitable subject for a standalone article. The criteria include the subject having had non-trivial coverage by multiple sources not directly related to the subject. The sources should also be reliable – have editorial oversight – in order to ensure verifiability.
  • checkY Editorial oversight typically applies to news sources, as well as topics about science, health and medicine; say for example, a science journal, or published paper. Look to see if a notable expert is the author, because it may qualify citing their blog in an article. The more you practice reviewing, the easier it becomes. It's like light suddenly appears Flashing bulbB. Atsme 💬 📧 18:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The specific notability guidelines are more specific notability guides for different subject areas; subjects that pass SNGs are generally presumed notable. They often have specific, verifiable criteria to guide editors in evaluating notability. Some discuss when articles shouldn't be created. In general, they deal with more subject area-specific details than WP:GNG.
The notability guideline for organizations/companies elaborates on WP:N. Organizations and companies require multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources to be considered notable; the requirements for sources to establish notability are greater than those used solely for verifiability. The quantity fulfilling the requirement of 'multiple' sources can vary, as sources are more easily available in some situations, such as for more recent organizations. Notability is not inherited by any product, company, or other subject; the required sources must exist for that subject. It is not necessary that they be in the article to establish notability.
  • checkY And we follow it closely to make sure we are not allowing promotion, marketing, sales into the pedia. It is very important. Okay Perfect4th, we are making some progress here. Finish the exercise directly below for RS and how you will approach a new article for review. Atsme 💬 📧 18:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Reliability of sources is not a dichotomy of unreliable and reliable but a scale. A number of things can contribute to the reliability of sources; in particular, sources independent from the subject that are secondary and published (in order to be verifiable) are preferred. Age can be a factor as well; newer sources may have more accurate information but may also have issues from recopying and summarizing the same material multiple times. Some sources have been deemed generally unreliable or deprecated by the community.
  • checkY I like your thinking, Perfect4th, it's a sign of a good reviewer who will only get better with practice & experience. One thing I want to say about WP:RSP – it is an essay that was never vetted by the wider community, so exercise caution and ask if you have any doubts about whether a source is reliable for specific material. Atsme 💬 📧 15:58, 24 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 flowchart mentions several general considerations and speedy deletion criteria to check for first (including articles being in another language and copyvio), but I'm assuming you're referring more specifically to notability here. My first steps then would be to check to see if notability is established, checking the GNG and SNGs as necessary (probably quite a bit while I'm getting more comfortable with it). I haven't gotten to the deletion segment yet, but that's one of the processes if an article's subject does not seem notable. My apologies for taking so long to get this part to you, Atsme, but it should be done now. Perfect4th (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Adding, when you are granted the user right, you will have access to the curation tool. It will provide information such as history, article creator, deletion, blocks, potential copyvio and so forth. It is wise to always check for copyvio, and compare the results to make sure it isn't a mirror of WP. If the site was there before the WP article was created, it is likely to be a copyvio.
  • Apology accepted but no need to do so. Go ahead and complete all of the other parts, and ping me when you finish each one, but keep working. I am probably going to take a break in mid-October, so if you want to finish my course and graduate, you will need to get it done pretty soon. Atsme 💬 📧 15:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Passed Pt. 1 Atsme 💬 📧 15:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

When dealing with other editors, it's important to assume that their intentions are to help the encyclopedia, even if their actions weren't perfect. It's not necessary if actions are clearly bad-faith, such as vandalism, but generally no ill intent should be assumed. Newcomers in particular may intend to help but end up making mistakes, as they are less familiar with the workings of the encyclopedia.
  • checkY It's pretty easy to distinguish a vandal from a newbie. In my experiences, most newbies will either start off boldly but badly, or they will be timid. Patience is needed in both cases. Atsme 💬 📧 09:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
It is essential that articles about living/recently people dead follow the content policies, especially WP:V and WP:NPOV, strictly. Information that is contentious and not well sourced or not sourced at all should be removed right away. Basically, all the content policies should be strictly enforced, as articles about BLPs could have an effect on their life – Wikipedia has to be careful to get such articles correct. I'm departing from the summary here a bit, but reflecting on the BLPREQUESTDELETE issue a few months back that you helped with, I regret being as cautious as I was in the information removal. If I recall correctly, there was a good deal in there that should have been removed from the start.
  • checkY That was good experience for you. A person's privacy is Europe is treated with more caution than a well-known person (celebrity or politician) in the U.S.The latter are entitled to some level of privacy and we must also be careful to not liable ourselves. As volunteers, we do not have the same protection as journalists for say, NYTimes or WaPo. WMF cautions us against liable and defamation in the BLP template and in edit view. One other thing to keep in mind – do not edit war to remove what you consider libelous material thinking you are safe from an admin action. If another editor reverts and starts an edit war, it is better to leave the scene and take the issue to BLPN, or call for consensus on the TP and let others decide. Atsme 💬 📧 09:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Editors have a conflict of interest/COI when they have an external relationship with the subject of an article. Editors are advised not to edit articles with which they have a COI, to disclose their COI, and only to create articles through AFC, as it is much more difficult to follow the various content policies, including NOR and NPOV. COI concerns can be discussed on a user's talk page, or brought to the COI noticeboard if necessary.
  • checkY Yes, if an editor works for the company they are writing about, or if the person is family or a close friend they should recruit others to do the writing. If it's just grammar, not a biggy but it is still better to have a collaborator overseeing it.
Editors who have been paid to edit Wikpedia must disclose the fact wherever relevant and should not edit related articles directly, but rather make suggestions on talk pages, as COI editors are encouraged to do, and put related created articles through AFC. Paid editors are expected to keep a list of their paid contributions on their userpage.
  • checkY The community shuns UPE and PE. WP was not created for capitalists. It is a project of giving and sharing freely. Having said that, we must keep in mind that WMF allows it, and so be it. Atsme 💬 📧 09:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Inquiry

Hi, Atsme. I'm still working through the NPP Tutorial (and haven't gotten here yet), but in a different part of Wikipedia I ran into something that might be a copyvio and I'm not sure how to handle it. I don't know if I can link it, but it's a 76% match on Earwig and multiple paragraphs are exactly the same as the highest match URL. The identical material is a good deal of the prose, but not all, and I don't know if the text copied is copyrighted or if the talk page is active. What should I do? Perfect4th (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Perfect4th, WP:NPPCV provides an in-depth tutorial. Perhaps you haven't gotten that far? Atsme 💬 📧 16:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I had some difficulty with the URL, but it appears to have been copied from Wikipedia instead. (Yes, I read through the tutorial once and I'm now working through more thoroughly – hopefully a bit faster at this point – to make sure I understand each section. Still, facepalming that I missed that.) Thanks! Perfect4th (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia's content is licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Wikipedia should not use others' material that has been copyrighted, except as covered by the non-free content policy/guideline. When copying material from somewhere else, including that licensed under CC-BY-SA and Wikipedia itself, the source should be provided. Linking to copyrighted material itself isn't an issue unless there is reason to suspect that it is copyright infringement. Copyrighted material should be removed and can be revdel'ed; a page that is solely made up of copyrighted content should be speedily deleted.
  • checkY New articles get entry-level curation by a bot, so when you graduate, you will have access to the curation tool which will provide important info about that article, such as potential copyvio, who created it and if they were blocked, if the article was previously deleted or redirected, etc. Giving a new article enough time for early curation by the bot, and/or the possibility editors may still be working on it is why we wait at least 3 to 5 days before reviewing new articles. It is always better to start at the back of the NPP queue. I make it a point to check the article history - who created it, what that editor's UTP looks like (to see if they have a string of deleted article notices, if the article was redirected or deleted before and why, what state it is in now, etc. Atsme 💬 📧 09:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Editors should not create hoaxes or disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. This is another reason that verifiability is important. Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable, however, and subject to the usual content policies. Articles suspected to be hoaxes should be investigated carefully, as they could just be little known.
  • checkY See Wikipedia’s Credibility Is Toast at the site we love to hate, and also see this Vice article. m( Another form of hoax or deception is fake notability by wannabe musicians, and others in the entertainment industry. They pay companies for marketing/promotion of them and/or their product to make them seem notable, and that is making notability much harder to detect. Garage bands, bit-part actors, start-up companies, are masters at appearing notable when all they're doing is marketing themselves or their company/product. Online websites (a dime a dozen) are capitalizing on it and doing well. Creating a product and having online websites that use volunteer reviewers working from home or that solicit reviews from the public is not what I consider a RS, and does not establish notability. I am also of the mind that Project Music needs an overhaul like Project Sports just got, but that's another topic. Atsme 💬 📧 09:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Pages whose content is wholly negative or are only there to disparage their subjects should be speedy deleted. If the subject is notable and doesn't already have an article, the page should be deleted and a neutral and properly sourced article written in its place. This does not apply to occasions when negative coverage of an individual becomes large enough it should have its own article separate from the subject's article.
@Atsme: I've finished adding summaries for Part 2. Perfect4th (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
checkY  Passed Pt. 2 – Well done! Please continue. Atsme 💬 📧 09:52, 29 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 communicate with article creators frequently; encouraging good faith article creators is vital. AGF is particularly important here, as we wouldn't want to drive away good contributors. Reviewers should interact with other editors, especially newcomers, frequently.
  • checkY – "frequently" is more than necessary but a kind thought on your part - it may be misconstrued. Once you start reviewing, you will be able to properly adjust the amount of time you can safely/appropriately invest interacting with individual editors. Atsme 💬 📧 15:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss
The Page Curation tool automates PROD, BLPPROD, and pages needing translation notifications. Reviewers should notify editors/creators for CSDs, moving articles to draftspace, redirects converted to articles that should not be standalone articles, and generally for other issues.
  •  Possibly – but that is only part of the initial curation of the article once it enters main stream. It shows you article history including issues like potential copyvio, Orphan, no categories, prior deletion, redirects, author of the article & their status, etc. As reviewers, we need to be aware of all of those things. We should fix the immediate issues like copyvio, add categories, see why the redirect was removed, why it was deleted to see if the issues were fixed, etc. There is a lot more to reviewing articles then tagging them for deletion. We try to save articles, and should not be too quick with the delete trigger. ;-) Atsme 💬 📧 15:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
Being friendly and kind helps discussions (AGF is of course essential). Clarity is important for helping explain comments or concerns, especially as many new contributors are not familiar with many or any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Reviewers are expected to know those well in order to review correctly.
  • Wikilove/positive comments
It's good to give newcomers positive feedback and support. Novice editors can often use encouragement and will be glad to see their work appreciated and receive constructive suggestions.
There are a number of warning templates for various incidents, including vandalism and test editing, and others such as paid editing, COIs, corporation usernames, removing speedy deletion tags from a user's own work, cut & paste moves, drafts, hasty speedy deletion tagging, and others.
  • The answer I need from you here is how you would approach these issues and use warning templates. Do over below:
Most warnings progress through the four levels and get reported to AIV if issues continue. I usually add specific information for an editor's case when I'm adding a warning if any applies, and oftentimes dispense with warnings altogether (especially at level 1) and explain more personally if there are issues I can explain more specifically with a note than the template.
@Atsme: Hopefully I've answered the question better this time; I've added another summary for this & finished the notes. Perfect4th (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: added summaries for Part 3. Perfect4th (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

AfD is a discussion about whether or not an article should be in Wikipedia. If a user thinks that an article should not be in Wikipedia and it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion or a PROD, the user can nominate it for deletion. AfDs are not votes; they are rather discussions based on policy on whether the article should be kept. Improving articles during an AfD is allowed, and alternatives to deletion should also be considered. Users nominating articles for deletion should check beforehand to make sure the article is suitable for deletion, and notifying those who might be interested in the AfD is good practice too.

checkY Good job! Atsme 💬 📧 21:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Prior to nominating an article for AFD, editors should make sure they understand the deletion policies and that the article shouldn't be speedy deleted or PROD'ed instead. They should check the sourcing (including whether there are more sources available), for previous nominations, for how the article is used in Wikipedia, whether the article could be fixed through normal editing, and whether an alternative such as merging or redirecting is more appropriate.
  • checkY Very important!! Always keep AGF in mind, and that the article creator may be inexperienced, and simply need a little guidance to help make the article better. Friendly communication is key!! Suggest the Teahouse, or if you have time, offer a hand. Atsme 💬 📧 21:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion is a method to tag an article for deletion if doing so would be uncontroversial. An article is tagged for at least seven days, and if there has been no objection in that time, an administrator can delete the article. Anyone can object to the deletion, often by removing the tag, and stop the PROD (unless it's obviously vandalism); anyone can also request for the article to be restored. PRODs should only happen once; if there is an objection, another venue (such as AfD) should be used if someone still feels the article should be deleted, with an exception for BLPPRODs.
  • checkY Typically if the author was a "hit and run", the PROD will happen. When you have access to the curation tool, you will know a great deal more about the article history, log, and content creator. Atsme 💬 📧 21:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
BLPPRODs are for articles that are about BLPs and contain no sources supporting anything the article says, as BLPs must contain sources; the BLPPROD tag should only be removed once there is at least one reliable one (though tags should be only be added if there are none whatsoever, regardless of reliability). If a BLPPROD is declined, the article can still be PROD'ed. BLPPRODs should not be used in place of CSDing or notability or WP:NOT concerns; other processes should be used if there's any doubt about the applicability of BLPPROD.
Soft deletion is often used if an AfD has minimal discussion. The article is deleted, but may be restored for any reason; it's basically treated like an expired PROD.
Articles that are outside of an encyclopedia scope but might belong on a sister project can be soft redirected there if the article would likely be recreated again and another mainspace article is not a better redirect target.
Speedy deletion is for deletions considered to be uncontroversial and fitting one of the specific criteria (such as gibberish, attack pages, copyvio, technical deletions, and creator requests). CSD'ed pages/article can be deleted immediately by an administrator. CSD tags shouldn't be removed by the page author except in certain circumstances (though it can be contested); if another editor removes the tag, however, it's considered to be a controversial deletion and shouldn't be re-added. CSD is for obvious deletions, and all an article's revisions should fall under the criteria.
@Atsme: added summaries for Part 4. Perfect4th (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Passed Sect 4 - good job, Perfect4th! You only have a few more to go, and then we start the live exercises. Keep in mind that our current NPP reviewers are like \S/ – incredible – our backlog went from 16k to under 2k and quickly is inching toward 1k!!! That means when we start the live Exercises below, you will need to get right on top of it before they get reviewed by the others!! Atsme 💬 📧 21:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

Article tagging is useful for indicating issues in an article that need fixing. However, they can become unhelpful if there are too many of them or they are irrelevant or unspecific. If the issues in an article are small and easily fixable by the tagger, it's generally better to do so right away rather than tagging. Communication is important in tagging, too, including both reasoning for the tags (especially if it's not as obvious) and in discussing the tags and their removal.
All Wikipedia pages other that talk pages, redirects, and userpages should have at least one category. Categorization should be applied as specifically as possible (using common sense); parent categories aren't necessary if a child category is used. It also should be verifiable and NPOV, and the defining characteristics of the subject are important things to categorize.

checkY Well stated. Atsme 💬 📧 12:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  •  Passed Pt. 5 - Perfect4th - you did it!!! 🎉🥳👏🏻🥂🍾 What comes next are the live exercises, and you need to do those soon after I list the articles because we have an incredible team of NPPs who reduced the backlog from 16k to just about 2k.
@Atsme: Added summaries for Part 5. Perfect4th (talk) 20:39, 13 October 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 it is crucial to begin your reviews as quickly as possible. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary - take action as you would if you were reviewing them for NPP.

1. Gugulesizwe High School

This article was moved to draftspace for UPE/COI before I got to it. It had two references, but the first was not independent and the second was not significant coverage. It had a claim of significance but wasn't a BLP, so I went straight to a search; there were some hits, but none passed the requirements for NCORP sources. Since the article contained useful prose, draftify looked a good option.
  • checkY

2. Saturn Award for Best Guest-Starring Performance in a Streaming Television Series and Saturn Award for Best Guest-Starring Performance in a Network or Cable Television Series

These articles were redirected before I got there, but I went through them in the edit history with the flowchart. After checking for CSD criteria and copyvio, both articles had only one source, so I did a Google search. There were several hits, though they were mainly brief mentions in a list of nominations, and several of them were wikis. I don't think they qualified for any subject-specific notability criteria. The topics did already exist at another title, and contained some information not already on the page (the list of nominations), but none of it was merged. I'm guessing Onel5969 counted it as non-notable and unnecessary minor information for the article they were redirected to.
  • checkY

3. B.E.Rojgaar

This article was deleted as a CSD G12 copyvio before I got to it.
  • checkY

4. Gestalten

CSD criteria and a copyvio check looked okay, as did the sources. The tone seems a little off, not quite encyclopedic and somewhat promotional, so I tagged it with {{tone}}. The article was not an orphan; I added WikiProject tags as well.
  • checkY

5. Moderate nationalism

CSD and copyvio looked okay. The sources also seem to establish notability. The article was categorized and had a sorted stub tag; I added a WikiProject tag to the talk page.
  • checkY - checked all 5, and like what I see. Just need to do 5 more in hopes of you getting another 2 or 3 that have not been reviewed first. Also want to add that MOS:LEAD states: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. I have been seeing far too many articles that have 1 or 2 sentences as the lead. Either tag or expand them as applicable. Atsme 💬 📧 14:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The two articles I could see that had already been dealt with were both easier and more difficult than the last two unreviewed articles; having an example to follow along how another reviewer dealt with the content was helpful, but trying to follow the source evaluation from the searches after someone else's review was tricky. The two unreviewed articles were more work, but also easier to evaluate.
@Atsme: added summaries for reviews. Perfect4th (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Perfect4th, I added 5 more - please proceed as you did above:

6. 2020–21 Burundi Ligue A

Checked CSD criteria and copyvio. The single source was for the 2019-20 season, so I checked the article for that season; the lead and reference look very similar to the 2019-20 season. All the statistics were from the 2019-20 article as well. I found a couple more references for the season table; I then tagged the article with {{disputed}} and {{lead too short}} and added my findings to the talk page, then added another WikiProject to that as well. I may fix the issues myself when I finish reviewing and post on WT:WikiProject Football.

*:See the following per the page curation tool: September 2, 2022 Florin1977 moved page 2020–21 Burundi Premier League to 2020–21 Burundi Ligue A Tag: Disambiguation links added – does your position remain the same knowing that information? If not, what would you do differently? Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

7. Hazara clothing

Checked CSD criteria and copyvio. The first two sources, when run through a translator, were very similar to the wording of the article; the article's language was not quite neutral anyway, so I rewrote it a bit. I added a lead too short tag and a WikiProject tag to the talk page (looks like there was a Hazara WikiProject that is now inactive, should I have added that as well?).
  • checkY See the following per curation tool: 18:03, August 28, 2022 Njd-de moved page Hazara clothing to Draft:Hazara clothing (Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace (via script)) – does your position remain the same? PS: when an article is as short as this one, (3 rather brief sections) a short lead is acceptable. My bad for not explaining that better. Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

8. Chang Wang-rok

Checked CSD criteria and copyvio. There were several sources, but it did feel like a lot of the article (based on the sources) is disproportionally about the subject's daughter and not the subject himself, so I posted on the talk page about it. I added WikiProject tags as well.
  • checkY Personal life section reads more like a CV or resume, so I would have tagged that section so tag it with Summarize section. Re: the daughter section could be tagged Importance section and also what you did by bringing it up on TP. This template table is a great tool for deciding which tag to use, be it a top-of-page tag that you might use as a single issue or wish to group various issues in the same banner, or add the appropriate section tags, or inline tags – your choice. Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

9. Maris Vijay

Checked CSD criteria and copyvio. A lot of the sources seemed to be interviews with the subject, but refs 6, 9, and 10 looked better on that count. Added a lead too short tag and WikiProject banners.
  • checkY The curation tool gives us things to watch for, and that includes looking at the article history. If you don't have access to the curation tool right then, simply look at the article's edit history and TP banner (and why I create TP banners when reviewing and include WikiProjects. It is also where we keep article milestones and activity like prior AfD, a merge, etc.) It is good to know if it was previously deleted and brought back, or if it was a reverted redirect. Per this diff the article was draftified. Do you see any significant changes from that Sept 1, 2022 draftify and what is there now? Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

10. Mario Herrera

Checked CSD criteria. One of the sources had several phrases overlapping with the article's text [1]; many of them are phrases that can't really be changed much, such as place names, but a few phrases could probably be written differently. Should that be copyvio-revdelled? None of the sources looked strong; most of them were PR/interviews. A search didn't turn up anything reliable. Based on the information in the article/searches and the flowchart, it looks to me like the article should be draftified, but it doesn't seem to fit all the NPP draft guidelines (not sure about #2, there's a user working on it periodically, and the aforementioned copyvio concern). I'm not sure about this one.
  • checkY Whenever you are unsure, it is always better to leave it as is for a more experienced reviewer, and find another article you are more comfortable reviewing. This article is also an excellent example of an article with too short a lead; it needs to be tagged. Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: added summaries for the next five articles. Perfect4th (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I responded, asked a couple of questions, and will wait to read your answers to the questions I just posed above before deciding if I should add 5 more articles for you to review. Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC) My strike-thru. 17:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Also FYI, Perfect4th - there is a small menu bar on the top right side of WP pages, and it looks like the following: [ History * Log * Filter * Talk Page * Notice * NPP Flowchart ] It is a script you can install on your user page/common.js and it is pretty handy for reviewing. See User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks and just click on INSTALL in the right info box. Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

CONGRATULATIONS!!! *<:o) Perfect4th, you  Passed the NPP course!! -<-@ When you apply for your user right, link to #Evaluation.

  • Perfect4th has passed this NPP training course, and has demonstrated a thorough understanding of WP:PAGs and the purpose of WP:NPP. They have also demonstrated the efficient use of the NPP flowchart, and what actions are necessary when reviewing new articles with and without the curation tool. Perfect4th has adequately demonstrated their ability to work as a NPP reviewer responsibly and efficiently. Atsme 💬 📧 17:50, 16 October 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!!

User:Nolabob

checkY Passed October 21, 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: Nolabob, 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.

Watch this video about the curation tool.
Learn the basic flow chart.
When in doubt refer to this flow chart.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the curation tool video in the right margin, and also review NPP Tutorial. It is bolded because it is important. 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. You cannot possibly over-ping me.

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!!

Oh, poopers! Forgot to sign it and screwed up the ping, so here we go again: Nolabob!! Atsme 💬 📧 18:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, thanks for all this. A preliminary question: In reading through the notability criteria, it states that "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time". But I often see in Wikipedia articles that don't seem to have this characteristic. Articles on minor sporting events seem this way. For example, here's one, the 2013 Liberty Bowl. The article has 40 or so citations. However, all of them were within the first few days of the event, indicating (to me at least) that the event was quickly forgotten by the sporting world. Does this mean that this particular article fails the notability criteria? Thanks again (You said it's not possible to ping you too much). Nolabob (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
You are quite welcome, Nolabob, and you are absolutely correct...BUT...sports, movies, songs, albums, video games, and the like have consumed WP, and unfortunately, change is not going to happen quickly, if at all. If an article meets WP:SIGCOV, even when the sources cited are online websites that are questionable, common sense and critical thinking skills are flushed down the toilet by fancruft and sport's enthusiasts who edit WP. See this article - it has my favorite phrase in it (the hegemony of the asshole consensus) ^_^, but not everyone appreciates that article as much as I do, despite it being true in many some cases.
You can pretty well guarantee that unless it is some middle school practice baseball team or other never heard of sports team in a developing country, you have a 50-50 shot of being successful at whatever action you choose, and your choices will be CSD, PROD, AfD, Draftify, Redirect, or Merge. It all depends on what admin shows up, and the same for AfD - who shows up and who closes. They did finally update some of the Sports stuff - see WP:NSPORT. Always start with GNG/SNG, and then go to the individual WP:N (whatever) be it N:Sports, N:Music, and so forth. NOTNEWS, NOTPROMO, NOTINDISCRIMINATE, TOOSOON, RECENTISM, 10YT and so on are good arguments, but again, it depends on who shows up. If we try to CSD, or PROD, it will likely be reverted, unless it is a blatant promo, advocacy, hoax, obvious non-notable such as Jimmy's lemonade stand, or a small commercial business – (there is less leniency for NCORP & NORG). If you choose to take it to AfD, the respective project teams will probably outnumber you, and sometimes they are correct which is one benefit of consensus, and why I've learned to approach them first. Hopefully, you will have more days of smooth sailing, and less chop. It takes practice to even come close to consistency, and you are about to get plenty of practice – but not to the point of burn-out. The practice happens during the live, hands-on Exercise portion, and I will be here to help guide you, and answer your questions. Atsme 💬 📧 00:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Another thought just hit me...bowl games are pretty much automatically notable because they get a lot of national coverage. The top college teams are matched in an invitation game, and that is what we look at - an event that is worthy of being noted...noteworthy. Bowl game explains it best as far as why those games are auto-includes. Atsme 💬 📧 01:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
And yet another... – Nolabob, still focusing on the 2013 Liberty Bowl...see Liberty Bowl#Game results, click on the last column title Notes and you will see that there is a wikilinked stand alone article for each year's game. NPP reviewing requires a bit of mind bending critical thinking relative to knowing where to look to confirm notability, but that will become second nature with hands-on experience. Try approaching each new article with the thought in mind that someone thought the article was notable...what could that reason be? Atsme 💬 📧 12:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

  • Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
Atsme, I’m assuming that the question that you pose of what would be my initial steps on looking at a new article for NPP review pertains only to the notability aspect. So far, I’ve only read the training materials pertaining to notability, GNG, SNG, and reliable sources anyway, as well as the SNG pertaining to corporations and organizations. With that in mind, that’s how I crafted my response to your question in Part 1 of the NPP training materials.
Notability is a property of the subject, not of the article itself. There are notability criteria as stated in the GNGs, which can at times be better evaluated using subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs). (Our bowl game discussion provides an example of this.) Notability is usually judged by having citations to verifiable secondary sources that are reliable and independent. The citations must describe the subject in a significant way and not just mention the subject in a trivial manner. Wikipedia describes criteria for reliable sources.
Notability is not the same as famous or well-known, although a subject can obviously be both notable and well-known. Notability is also not the same as importance. Failure to meet the notability criteria can sometimes mean that the subject can be suitably addressed within another Wikipedia article, which often involves merging with the other article. Notability is not temporary and can often be indicated by sustained coverage over a significant period of time. Multiple secondary sources is much preferable (and often essential), especially for purposes of neutrality. Nolabob (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Well stated.
  • Nolabob, there are a few things I want to mention about the nuances involving notability, especially what the masthead above describes. Guidelines are not policy; however, V, NOR, and NPOV are, and there will be situations when a new article is noncompliant with one or all of those policies. One example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Liberation Now!, and this is the state of the article when nommed. There will also be situations when top shelf reviewers set a pace for themselves that inadvertently may be too fast to catch those nuances, and end up sending an article to AfD when draftify, or tagging would have worked (noting that some editors/admins see draftifying as a back door to deletion when that could not be further from the truth). I apologize for using the following situation in which I was involved, but I cannot explain it better than by linking to the actual events and conversations. Following is the order of occurrence:
  1. State of the article when reviewed and tagged.
  2. A 2nd NPP reviewer AfD nommed.
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Dawson
  4. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 September 9 – the close went to WP:DRV
  5. Barbara Dawson in currrent state.
  • Granted, NPP reviewers are neither expected nor required to devote that much time to reviewing articles, but I align more closely with WP:FIXIT if you have time. Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    OK, yes, the distinction between guideline and policy is important, and, in the past, I've often assumed they were the same. Also, I appreciate your use of specific examples. BTW, the Dawson article turned out to have very good quality! Nolabob (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

Atsme, It is generally the case that Wikipedia edits are made in good faith and so the assumption of good faith is a Wikipedia policy. However, at times the policy can be either overapplied or underapplied.
When copyright violations occur, these are most commonly done in good faith, just through general misunderstanding of copyright restrictions by the editor (in fact, copyright requirements can be a complex subject, and it is no wonder there is an entire field of law pertaining to it.) NPP reviewers must themselves demonstrate good faith. It is necessary to be patient with newcomers, who often are simply unfamiliar with procedures and practices. NPP reviewers should never do a personal attack, as is true with most all aspects of Wikipedia. Nolabob (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, Wikipedia has a special policy related to “BLP”. For these, particular care is needed in covering and reviewing topics, and there may be legal considerations. The possibility of libel is a particular concern. The same core principles apply, including neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Wikipedia’s living person policy applies to anyone born within the last 115 years unless there is a reliable source documenting the person’s death.
Contentious material, if any, must be rigorously supported by verifiable, reliable, secondary sources. The writing must be “conservative” with a cautious, dispassionate tone. There cannot be disproportionate allocation of space to single points of view. The concept of “eventualism”, that particular points of view will even out over time, does NOT apply to biographies of living people.
There should be no self-published sources or circular sources. It is necessary in these biographies to pay particular attention to the content of the “further reading”, “external links” and “see also” sections of the article. The article should contain only material pertinent to a person’s notability, and this is especially important for people who are relatively unknown but still notable. There should be particular caution around personal information because of the possibility of breach of privacy.
People notable for single events are a special case. At times, it may be best to merge the article with one that provides broader discussion of the event.
There is a “BLP” template that is generally appropriate that NPP reviewers post on the talk page. NPP reviewers should be wary of edits by the biographical subject themselves, although reviewers should be kind in their communications with these people.
As always, deletion is a last resort.Nolabob (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, Conflict of Interest (COI) pertains to Wikipedia articles about oneself, family, friends, clients, employers, or one’s own financial and other relationships, and is strongly discouraged by the WMF. Clearly COI situations are not consistent with the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view.
Regarding paid editors, the WMF requires that editors need to disclose who is paying them. [Incidentally, I know someone who is a paid Wikimedian, and I’m glad to say that the individual is meticulous about disclosing this and adhering to WMF policy.]
Likewise, if a person with a COI makes an edit, they should at very least disclose the COI. People with COIs are free to propose changes to articles but should not make these edits themselves. If an NPP reviewer identifies a COI situation, this should be handled discreetly rather than risking public embarrassment for the person involved.
Subject matter experts are welcome to contribute to the Wikipedia (and probably encouraged), but they likewise must adhere to COI policy and guidelines. So, if they cite their own work in the article, this usually constitutes a COI and they should disclose it.
COI is not the same as bias. An editor with a COI may or may not have a bias. There are distinctions between actual, potential, and apparent COI. Red flags include (but are not limited to) poorly sourced content and unnecessary detail. Covert advertising is widespread these days, and this type of COI can show up in Wikipedia.
There are a number of useful templates to use in COI situations. NPP reviewers can use notice boards to help investigate possible COI. Nolabob (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY – with an add-on thought...if it's just copy editing what others have written, it shouldn't be a big deal. The problems arise when it is blatant promotion, whitewashing, and the like...but the mindset here is if you give them an inch they will take a mile, so exclude it all together. Atsme 💬 📧 15:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, Copyright infringement on Wikipedia is strictly forbidden. The key passage is this one, lifted directly out of the Wikipedia article on copyrights: “All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. Generally, Wikipedia must have permission to use copyrighted works.”
Wikipedia content is freely licensed to the general public under several formal licenses (I won’t get into the legal aspects). The issue from the NPP reviewer’s point of view is whether the content of the article under review is itself free of copyright restrictions or whether the editor may have copied the content from elsewhere, that content being copyright restricted. This is a serious problem for the Wikipedia, one that all of us Wikimedians are obliged to look out for and handle properly.
Of course, linking to copyrighted works is perfectly acceptable, and in fact most Wikipedia articles will do so, since material in citations is generally copyrighted.
As mentioned above in the “Assume good faith” section, often new or inexperienced editors / contributors commit copyright violations inadvertently out of simple ignorance. The NPP reviewer must gently help the editor to correct this and learn from the experience.
Personal note: Recently I’ve been using “Earwig’s Copyvio Detector” and like this tool. Nolabob (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY It is indeed a very good tool. The curation tool is also helpful as it predetermines potential copyvio issues, but we still double-check to see if it was a mirror or post-dated article that is copying WP. Some properly cite WP, others don't and there are options for making them abide by our copyright. See WP:MAF Atsme 💬 📧 15:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, The hoax essay defines a hoax as a trick to induce people to believe a falsehood is actually true. Given that anyone can edit the Wikipedia, articles in the Wikipedia are vulnerable. (Some vandals add profanity to Wikipedia articles.) The presence of verifiable, reliable sources is a good indication of validity of the article and that the article is not a hoax. Articles about hoaxes are fair subject material for Wikipedia articles. There are templates that NPP reviewers can use for suspected hoaxes. Nolabob (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, The Wikipedia defines attack pages as any page (not necessarily an article) that “that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced.” Nearly always, attack pages should be speedily deleted. There is a template that should be placed on the editor’s user talk page to warn them. Also, place the speedy deletion template on the page itself.
In the case in which the subject is notable, and a neutral point of view article exists, an option is to revert to this version. If not, another possibility is to replace the article with a stub version. (But is this the responsibility of the NPP reviewer? Seems like it could be setting the stage for an edit war.)
SUGGESTION - Tag it with the appropriate tag, either a banner, section or inline tag. Also make sure the cited sources support contentious or non-neutral statements, and make sure it is not in WikiVoice. If the cited source does not support the statement, remove the source and add the appropriate inline tag(s) such as [neutrality is disputed], [contentious label], [weasel words], [unbalanced opinion?], [undue weight? – discuss] and so forth. You pick the appropriate tag. It could be the entire article, or a section, or just a few comments – or a combination but don't overtag, and use grouping if it's a page tag. Atsme 💬 📧 15:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
There is also what is called a “negative spinout article”, which are ones in which there is an inappropriately lengthy section of an article dedicated to attack. In this case, the question becomes: Does the article comply with Wikipedia’s BLP policy? (However, I can imagine cases of negative spinout articles that are not biographical articles but are on other types of subjects. How does an NPP reviewer handle this?)
  • See my suggestions above. Also, as to handling an attack page we handle it with care. If it is a blatant attack, WP:G11. If it leans strongly to being an attack page by a non-active drive-by editor who will probably not contest a PROD, then PROD it. If you believe it is borderline enough that it should be deleted, but you want consensus, then either start a discussion on the TP, or nom for AfD. If it's just so-so more non-neutral than an attack, use the tagging. Atsme 💬 📧 15:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The article about attack pages states that administrators should not quote any of the attack page’s content in the deletion summary. An NPP reviewer is NOT an administrator, correct?
  • Correct; however, it is a path to becoming an admin. Barkeep49 began at NPP, became an admin, and is now a very active & efficient member of ArbCom. We are quite proud of him. TonyBallioni also started as a coordinator at NPP, and became an admin. AshleyYourSmile was one of my NPPSCHOOL grads who went on to become an admin. Unfortunately, as I understand it, she became the target of some weirdo, and it scared her off WP all together. She was an excellent editor, and very bright. Atsme 💬 📧 15:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Good job - excellent questions. Atsme 💬 📧
[Comment: Sometimes some of Wikipedia’s templates are not obvious how to use them, and the instructions the Wikipedia gives are hard to understand and poorly exemplified. Hopefully, in the course of this NPP training, we’ll work through a few examples.] Nolabob (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Twinkle has a good list, our curation tool has a fairly decent list of tags, but I also use Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup#Verifiability and sources, which I linked for you above because it does provide explanations for use of the tag, be it a top page banner tag, a section tag, or inline tag. Atsme 💬 📧 15:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)

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

  • Discussions with creators of new pages
  • Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss
  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
  • Wikilove/positive comments
Atsme, I would hope that, more often than not, most new articles are suitable for the Wikipedia, and so minimum communication with creators of new pages is required. But I’ll find out soon enough if that’s in fact the case.
One of the pertinent distinctions is between the article talk page and the user talk page. Generally in NPP Review, the review will be article specific, and so most of the time discussions with the new page creator will be on the article talk page. As always, there is the assumption of good faith on the part of the creator. Therefore, communications must be civil, constructive, and to the point.
Tags provide automatic notification. Manual notification of the new page creator may be required when the reviewer is asking for the creator to take a specific action.
Wikipedia offers editors / contributors lots of resources for help. One of particular note for NPP Review is the talkpage in which reviewers can discuss the process. There was also an NPP noticeboard, which is now inactive, as best I can tell.
Positive feedback is (in my opinion, at least) in short supply in the Wikipedia. So reviewers should consider giving positive feedback when the new page creator merits it. [I’ve given barnstars a couple of times to editors (not new page creators), and I’ve also clicked the “thank” button for editors who make improvements to articles that I originated. But I’m probably guilty, too, of not giving enough positive feedback to editors / creators. WikiLove is a new thing for me to explore.]
Regarding the warning templates, I’ll just say that I’m astonished how many there are. It’s probably an indication of how much of a problem inappropriate actions on the Wikipedia have been. I can only imagine that it will take considerable experience to become proficient at their use. My question: It seems to me that NPP Reviewers would probably only ever use Level 1 and Level 2 warning templates. Higher levels would be left to administrators. Is that correct? Nolabob (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Yes, too many warning templates actually. Level 1 and 2 are most common, but I cannot recall ever using those templates on new editors. Keep in mind, the NPP curation tool has its own notice generator, and also has Wikilove (the heart in the toolbar). See Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help#What is WikiLove and how does it work? We also want to help make new article creators feel welcome because we are the last stop where an article is either accepted and indexed for the search engines, or it gets draftified, proposed for merging, or it is redirected, or deleted depending on the admin's or closer's respective POV as it pertains to CSD and PROD, or AfD consensus. Sometimes problems arise, like with a merge, which is nothing more than a suggestion that takes place by tagging the 2 involved articles. A draftify or redirect could be reverted (and quite often are, and that is where the templates come in) but I prefer to simply start a collegial discussion at the article creator's TP. It may be that they just need a bit of guidance, so we send them to WP:Teahouse, or offer our help if we have time. When you first arrive at an article, the curation tool will advise you if there are any potential issues. I make it a practice to check for copyvio first. Then I look at the page log and edit history - a great tool for this purpose is in the Tips section below. I also check the UTP of the article creator to see who I am dealing with, and if there is potential UPE, or an editor who repeatedly submits rejected articles, etc. Also see WP:BEFORE, which is very important. Atsme 💬 📧 14:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

Atsme, As discussed above, deletion is a last resort. But of course there will be circumstances in which deletion is the only reasonable outcome, typically because of notability concerns, hoaxes, personal attacks, BLP issues, significant issues with citations, or copyright problems. The circumstances would be ones in which simple revision is inadequate. There are deletion nomination tags, and they are at various levels, in particular speedy deletion and proposed deletion. There can also be various improvement tags (I’m expecting these to be commonly used since improvement is preferred over deletion).
Standard procedure is for the discussion of deletion to run its course in 7 days. The decision is generally rendered by an administrator, although experienced reviewers / editors can make the decision (I’m gonna steer clear of decision-making for the foreseeable future). The decision is NOT a voting process but is made based on the strength of the arguments or evidence, pro or con.
“Soft delete” occurs when the nomination has not generated sufficient discussion in the seven day time period. In this case, the deletion occurs but can be reversed by the process of “request for undeletion. [However, what is the difference between this and the soft deletion proposal that failed? See the article: Wikipedia:Soft_deletion_(failed_proposal)].
The BLPPROD tag has to do with biographical articles on living people for which the article is unsourced. I assume that “unsourced” includes the case in which there are citations but they are not from verifiable, reliable secondary sources. The PROD tag is the proposed deletion tag having to do with “uncontroversial deletion”, which is when the reviewer can reasonably expect there to be no objection to the article deletion. Neither of these two tags should be used at the same time as other deletion tags.
Soft re-direct is another special case. It has to do with deciding that the article is better placed in a Wikipedia sister project, such as Commons, WikiVoyage, WikiQuote, etc. Not surprisingly, there are tags for the soft re-direct. The difference versus hard re-direct, is that the reader must still click through to the new page rather than being automatically re-directed. Question: Would this ever include Wikipedias in other languages?
Speedy deletion is for administrators who determine that a given article should be immediately deleted without need for any discussion. An NPP Reviewer can propose speedy deletion but it is the administrator’s responsibility to decide whether to delete. There are a set of criteria for this, and they include abbreviations. Examples of criteria include, but are not limited to: Articles created by banned users, Clear-cut copyright violations or infringement, Requests made by users to delete pages in their own user space, Re-creation of a page that was previously deleted, etc. Nolabob (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

Atsme, As stated earlier, improvement is much preferred over deletion. After all, that’s the spirit of collaborative projects such as the Wikipedia. Tags can be and should be used to indicate where improvement is needed. Tagging is an example of constructive criticism, and so it must be done in a civil tone (many of these tags include the option of tailoring the text of the tag.). NPP reviewers can consider doing small fixes themselves, but it is not the job of NPP reviewers to go around fixing every new page that comes along.
Usually tags will go at the top of the article, but sometimes in specific sections.
Beware of “drive-by tagging”. This is the circumstance in which the tag is not accompanied by sufficient information to enable a proper fix. The edit summary can be used for short explanations or the talk page for more detailed explanation. It is often helpful to include a link to the appropriate Wikipedia policy.
Tags can be / should be removed when the problem is fixed, although often tags are inadvertently left in place. “Tag-bombing” (having too many tags) is to be avoided.
“Article wide tags”, as opposed to section specific tags, generally are used in stub-class articles and start-class articles.
Categorization is a navigational tool in Wikipedia, to relate articles pertaining to a general subject area. Pretty much every article should belong to at very least one category. [A couple of comments, from my own POV: Categorization is something that pretty much every Wikimedian should be familiar with. Since it is usually easy to do, I think NPP reviewers should consider adding categories to new articles that don’t have them. In these situations, for new editors / contributors, I’m thinking that NPP reviewers could use categorization as a “teachable moment” to show new editors / contributors about how and why to add categories.]
Atsme, Just so you know, should I pass Part 5 of this tutorial and move on to the actual NPP reviews, I’m leaving town for a couple days late tonight, returning Thursday night. So, if you post links to articles for me to review, I’m unlikely to be able to review them until Friday. I say this because another NPP reviewer could jump in and do the review before me. Nolabob (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY  Passed Pt. 4 Adding: uncategorized articles come to NPP rather frequently, and it's easy enough for us to add a cat; orphans are a different story. I will wait until Friday to add the articles. The NPP team we have now are going through the NPP queue very quickly, so I need to add them when you are in standby mode ready to review them. Ping me when you are on-go. Atsme 💬 📧 12:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Since I have a little bit of free time today prior to travels, for the heckuvit, I just now happened to look at the New Pages Feed. One of the articles at the top of the feed is Economy of Cebu. It's pretty much just a stub. However, there already is another Wikipedia article on the Province of Cebu in the Philippines. In fact, this article already has a section on the economy of the province. In the spirit of NPP Review, would it be appropriate for the reviewer to recommend merge? Thanks for indulging me on this. Nolabob (talk) 12:41, 18 October 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 is sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, please do not hesitate to take action as you would normally do as a bona fide patroller.

Atsme, I'm back in town now and so could proceed with the NPP reviews that you assign. Considering how short is the backlog right now, perhaps it would be best if you assigned one article at the time. That way, there's less risk of another reviewer jumping in. Thanks! Nolabob (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

Good luck! Atsme 💬 📧 20:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The Binance article’s history indicates it goes back quite a while (first created in December 2017), and has a lengthy edit history, with a bunch of different editors. Obviously the subject meets the notability threshold, and it has a large number of citations to reliable, verifiable secondary sources. However, Earwig’s Copyvio Detector indicates a strong likelihood of copyright violation, especially from this source. There are other possible copyright violations too.
The article’s talk page indicates that there has been a lot of back-and-forth on this article. However, none of them mention copyright violations, that I can see. The article pertains to cryptocurrency, and this subject area evidently is “semi-protected” from edits.
Frankly, I’m a little reluctant to touch anything to do with crypto in my first NPP review – I could be treading into controversial waters right out of the starting gate. But I do think that, at very least, the tag {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}} should be inserted on the article’s talk page and also list the article on the Wikipedia:Copyright Problems page. Tagging in this way would force the editors to address the copyright violations issue. Maybe it is legit, but I have concern that it is not. I certainly do not believe this article passes “new page curation” at this time. Nolabob (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll also add that it seems the article may have originally been about WazirX but now pertains to Binance because of a merger of the two entities (and therefore an article merge). I suppose merging the two is logical. Nolabob (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Looking still further at this, it seems that the "re-direct" for the WazirX page to the Binance page was added just today. Perhaps you really did want me just to do NPP Review on the WazirX page and not the Binance article. But someone beat me to it. Besides, the Binance article has its own problems. Nolabob (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Nolabob, you did a great review, and yes, WazirX was the stub I wanted you to review but the above is even better. Our new team at NPP is amazing – record setters. I am very happy to say at least 5 of those active editors graduated from my course (shameless plug). :-D I'm going to fill the list, so continue as you did above if they are already reviewed. If not, then you review them. Atsme 💬 📧12:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, For some reason, I'm not able to navigate to the non-re-directed version of this article. If I'm doing something wrong, please forgive my ineptitude. Suggestions? Thanks, Nolabob (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Showing the fine print of the redirect link
  • Click on the image to enlarge, and let me know if you have the same header style on your computer. You probably don't have the part that shows von Grandmaster 6% ....etc. (it's a separate script) but directly under it, do you see redirect? If so, click on the redirected blue link Highland Karabakh which should take you to the redirect page. From there, click view history to see what happened. If there is nothing showing but that it was redirected, then click on the log in the top right margin (provided by the script User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks which you should install) and you will see the following:
20:37, September 17, 2022 Miranche talk contribs created page Highland Karabakh (redirect, literal meaning in English) Tag: New redirect (thank)
20:36, April 17, 2022 Tavix talk contribs deleted page Highland Karabakh (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Dolyn) in violation of ban or block) Tag: Twinkle (thank)
15:09, February 13, 2022 Rosguill talk contribs marked Highland Karabakh as reviewed Tag: PageTriage
15:09, February 13, 2022 Rosguill talk contribs marked revision 1065803841 of page Highland Karabakh patrolled Tag: PageTriage (thank)
07:15, January 15, 2022 Heanor talk contribs created page Highland Karabakh (←Redirected page to Nagorno-Karabakh) Tag: New redirect (thank)
  • Now you know what happened but we cannot see the G5 pages. We just know that in September another redirect was created. In this case, we simply check it as reviewed. Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, I installed the superlinks script but still can't see the Highland Karabakh article. Nolabob (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
That is because it was never an article. It began as a redirect, not an article. Atsme 💬 📧 17:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, The Omarhgee article has multiple issues. However, another reviewer has already tagged this article for speedy deletion because of lack of notability. The reviewer used the db-band tag to nominate for speedy deletion. So the question at this point is whether lack of notability is grounds for speedy deletion. The reviewer is essentially saying that no one would dispute the lack of notability and furthermore that the article currently lacks any credible claim of notability. However, notability is a property of the subject not of the article itself. Therefore it is incumbent on the reviewer to do a suitable check for notability to determine if there are reasonable verifiable, credible secondary sources that would establish notability. But I came up empty in my search on this topic. That said, if it were me doing this review, I’d instead use the BLPPROD tag so that the creator has a chance to respond. Speedy deletion is reserved for the most obvious cases, and so is a bit of an extreme measure. [By the time I posted this, the article apparently was already deleted.] Nolabob (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, There is complexity around this article. Obviously it meets the notability criteria, and certainly has ample verifiable, credible secondary sources. The complexity comes about for two reasons: One is that the article was created using text from the Wikipedia article on Maryland. Although an editor has added text to the new article in the last few days, the text in the Maryland article persists, resulting in considerable redundancy between the two. I personally think the subject is substantial and notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia page, but someone needs to edit the original article accordingly. The second element of the complexity is that Earwig’s shows very high similarity to two other webpages. This is one and here’s the other. Neither of these seem like sources that would do research on the geography of Maryland (one has to do with Maryland dentists and the other Maryland doctors). My hunch is that the other two references copied and pasted information from the Wikipedia (rather than the other way around), either the Geography of Maryland article or more likely the Maryland article before the geography article was created. This could probably be sleuthed, but this would take effort, probably beyond reasonable NPP Reviewer’s responsibility. If I were the NPP Reviewer on this article, here’s what I would do: As I don’t want to embarrass the creator of the geography of Maryland article (I’m assuming good faith), I’d defer the NPP Review for a few days, and instead post a note on the article talk page, asking the creator to address the concern. If the creator satisfactorily addresses the potential copyright issue, then the article should receive NPP curation. If not, then the article should get the PROD tag, with the stated reason being copyvio. Nolabob (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 Possibly *Your hunch was correct. We have to be careful about copyvio reports because it is highly likely, especially with business locations and even government, those sites are mirroring WP articles, as is the case with the dentist article. First give away is leaving our footnote numbers in the paragraphs. What we normally do if it's minimal is simply remove the material, but before we do, a quick check is sufficient by looking at our article's edit history and see if it comes before or after the copyright dates published on the source. Another way to check it is to use wayback machine and see if that site had the material prior to when we added it. Also, the copyvio check that NPP has in place with the curation tool did not warn of a potential copyvio with that article. Atsme 💬 📧 16:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


Atsme, Another NPP Reviewer has added a proposed deletion tag to this article, for lack of notability as determined by lack of suitable verifiable, reliable secondary sources. As stated above, notability is a property of the subject not the article. In my opinion, this subject is in the gray area between sufficient notability and lack thereof. A quick search reveals several sources beyond those given in the article, although my brief perusal of them did not reveal any in-depth discussion. That’s why I say this subject is in the “gray” area. But just on its own, the subject having been a significant competitor, a member of Disney on Ice, and a skating coach, I’m inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. So, if I were participating in the NPP review discussion, I’d recommend moving it to draft space, pending creators / editors finding suitable sourcing. I don’t see other NPP issues with this article. Incidentally, I looked at the creator's user page. The individual evidently is a sports journalist by profession, and so certainly ought to have access to suitable sources, if they in fact exist. Nolabob (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll also add that it looks like the NPP Reviewer used the PROD tag for this (but maybe I'm not recognizing the tag properly). By the book, it should be the BLPPROD tag. Nolabob (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Little caveat for BLPPROD - A common source of confusion in application is the different treatment of presence of sources for placement of the tag, versus removal of the tag. The requirements can be summed up as: only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that support any statement made about the person in the article, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added. Atsme 💬 📧 18:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • checkY Benefit of the doubt is good for the reasons you provided. Good job!! In a nutshell, simply competing, or warming benches doesn't automatically make someone notable. WP has tightened up on its acceptance of sports figures - they are no longer notable simply for qualifying and showing up – you don't make headlines in the sports section or get a blue ribbon unless you earn it. OTOH, we are more lenient with historic sports figures, especially women, because we did not have the SIGCOV like we have today with national and international distribution. Also, while CONTN and NEXIST do matter, an article still has to present enough content to establish that it is a noteworthy subject. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. In the last sentence, CONTN refers more to the latter than to the former. Common sense tells us if a subject is truly notable, and if it is, it will probably inspire you to find the necessary RS in order to keep the article; thus NEXIST vs the state of the article at the time of review. Atsme 💬 📧 18:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Nolabob, hope you can get to these before they are reviewed, but that's ok if not. I want to review the reviewed articles and tell me if they were properly tagged (reviewed). Atsme 💬 📧 12:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  •  Passed the live reviews, and the course. Congratulations! Nolabob, I couldn't have asked for a more erudite approach from a participant than what you've demonstrated throughout this tutorial. We could carry on with reviews for another month, and you will probably gain a bit more confidence for your own benefit, but it will come quicker if you just start doing it (while we still have articles to review – our current NPP team is not letting any moss grow under their feet.) There will always be gray areas, and if you are ever in doubt, I'm always available, and there's also WT:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers. Discord is another venue where the team hangs out and discusses NPP issues/events. I will now provide your evaluation so you can apply for the NPP user right. Atsme 💬 📧 18:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for the excellent training. The training module you have put together definitely was a confidence builder for me, and the notes I generated in this user talk page will be useful to me as I proceed with NPP Reviews.
    A general comment, there was an item on WP a month or two ago, perhaps on The Signpost, but perhaps elsewhere on WP, about the need for more NPP Reviewers. While I mostly view my interests on WP as being writing and editing, I feel a responsibility to the WP community to give back, and so I responded to the call for NPP Reviewers that I saw. Perhaps ironically, there's not much of a back log anymore on new article reviews. Still, I'll proceed with NPP Reviews in addition to my own writing and editing. I appreciate your offer of on-going assistance, should I be presented with difficult NPP Review issues. Best regards, Nolabob (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

CONGRATULATIONS ON A JOB WELL DONE!! -<-@ *<:o)
  • Nolabob has demonstrated more than adequate ability to review new articles. He is adept in his understanding of WP:PAGs, knowing what to look for in his approach to a new article, what actions to take, and how to properly respond to others relative to his reviews. I have no doubt that he will be an asset to NPP. Atsme 💬 📧 19:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Tips

  • User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool – it adds a small linked menu bar on the top right side of article pages as follows: [ History * Log * Filter * Talk Page * Notice * NPP Flowchart ]
  • 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.

Userbox

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

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

Coptic Guy

Tutorial incomplete: Coptic Guy took a year long Wikibreak beginning in October 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: That Coptic Guy, 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.

Curation tool video
Learn the basic flow chart.
When in doubt refer to this flow chart.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the curation tool video in the right margin, and also review 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. You cannot possibly over-ping me.

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 💬 📧 21:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Atsme! All set with part 1. I took the time to review the page curation video as well as the charts beforehand, prior to answering part 1.
Looking forward to your reply :) — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 14:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

  • Notability, as defined on Wikipedia, discerns whether a subject (human, event, animal, or otherwise) or, generally, a given topic is worthy of having an article written about it. It is misunderstood as solely relating to widespread fame or popularity--those characteristics alone do not define a topic from becoming worthy of being noted, although they are important to consider. Essentially, with notability, we as reviewers are asking if the topic is suitable enough for its own article to be created. "Notable" need not be restricted to widespread coverage only, but should include verifiable and legitimate impact on culture, history, literature, science, and so forth.
  • WP:GNG offers a general scaffolding for which we are able to say something is "notable", or worthy of article creation.
  1. At the outset, the topic at hand is presumed to be notable if it has received significant-enough coverage from resources that are NOT associated with the subject (i.e., primary sources, sources with ties to the subject, autobiographies These guidelines put forth the presumption that a topic is suitable for article creation, but is not a standalone guarantee that this is indeed the case.
  2. Coverage of the topic needs to be in such a way where content or understanding behind that topic isn't assumed or trivially mentioned. This is to say that there should be reliable sources that could substantiate details about the subject at hand, staying away from passer-by mentions, so to speak. The example provided of Bill Clinton's high school band is one such instance, where the band itself is really only mentioned in passing, with not much else.
  3. Sources need to be reliable. Per WP:RS, such sources should generally be published and available to the public (as opposed to relying on anecdotes or hearsay for example).
  4. Wikipedia prefers the use of secondary sources, particularly those that are independent of the subject. Such sources are ones without a direct tie to the subject or context at hand. Secondary sources discuss information that is presented separately from the secondary source itself.
  • checkY Nice. Just want to add a bit about "trivial mention". We do not want to conflate "trivial" with brief, or a few sentences, or short paragraph. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS If the mention is something noteworthy in passing, that is not "trivial". If it is mentioned as a source, or to cite a quote, that is not trivial. If the introduction in a study or research paper includes or names the subject as part of the study, and doesn't consistently name it throughout even though the study is focused on it, that is not trivial. If there are enough of those types of mentions, they can be stacked to count toward N. That is where common sense kicks in and critical thinking tells us if they are mentioned or cited in that manner, there is bound to be a RS or two about it somewhere. We then check WP:TWL Atsme 💬 📧
  • SNGs are subject-specific notability guidelines that editors and reviewers must follow when dealing with a particular topic for which a guideline is written. SNGs provide guidance on when topics can or cannot have an article written about them, or regarding sources or coverage that is deemed appropriate for determining notability. SNGs exist for a wide variety of subjects and can differ from the GNG and offer specifications, such as the one that exists for geographic features or academics and professors.
  • checkY This can be a little tricky. There is no hard, fast rule so we use our own judgment and/or bring up a discussion on our Discord channel, or WT:NPP when we have questions. Atsme 💬 📧
  • The central issue at hand in this SNG is whether or not it would be appropriate to dedicate a Wikipedia article for a certain organization, product, or service. Strictly defined, an "organization" is one that gathers a large group of people who are formed for an express purpose (hospitals, nonprofits and other charitable organizations, social clubs, etc.). This definition does not include smaller groups of people, such as families, co-authors, or any otherwise small gatherings of people. This SNG specifies that there is no such thing as "inherent notability"; i.e., on their own, organizations aren't notable just for the mere fact that they are an organization that exists, again emphasizing that notability is NOT synonymous with fame, but is instead connoting to "worthy of being noted". In accordance with with notability is, organizations or products must have had legitimate effects on culture, society, entertainment, science, etc., where such an impact is able to be backed-up by verifiable, preferably secondary sources. An organization's notability is not inherited by ways of association with a notable person or notable subsidiaries, or "child" companies. Reviewers and editors must also be wary of WP:COI, as companies may sneakily make their way onto Wikipedia for the mere purpose of promoting their company, or worse, paying someone to do so for them to escape culpability.
  • checkY Yes, well stated. We are far less lenient relative to our PAGs when it involves these types of articles because it can be difficult to spot today's promo articles as more PR firms spring up with new ideas (and cost schedules) to promote a business, person, organization, etc. Atsme 💬 📧
  • On Wikipedia, multiple sources are considered as a single source especially when it comes to wire service articles. In terms of calling a source a "reliable source", such sources should have a reputation of accuracy and fact-checking preceding them. These sources cannot include unpublished texts or an editor's personal experience at al. They must be published and available to the public in some way--they should be accessible in some way, either in physical or digital form. Sources need to be directly related to the topic at hand and support the claim or piece of information it is citing in the article. Newer sources are preferred especially in science and medicine-based articles. Peer-reviewed publications, other journal-based sources, and take precedence. Additionally, sources must be free from bias and should come from reputable sources known for their rigorous standards/reputation in fact-checking and accuracy.
  • Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
  1. The article needs to have citations to support its claims--otherwise, an article with no citations at all meets one of the WP:CSD, and I would tag it and move on accordingly. The article needs to satisfy other basics such as having been written in English. I will also need to ensure that is is not merely a promotional, attack, or test page. If the article does satisfy these basics, then...
  2. The article will need to have sufficient context and be free of any possible copyright issues (in either its text or images).
  3. I will then check notability, first starting with WP:GNG generally, then going on from there to explore the corresponding SNG. If the article chronicles a living person, it will need to follow WP:BLP and turn up reliable sources (with characteristics that were previously explained) that elucidate the notability of this individual.

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

  • This is a fundamental policy I deal with often when dealing with vandals! Before close examination, at the outset, we must assume that any comment, edit, or article proposal/creation was made with good faith. That is to say that we assume that those editors have the best intentions in mind as opposed to deliberately trying to be disruptive, harm Wikipedia or otherwise. Especially when it comes to article creation, an editor who may make an article that could be construed as offensive may not know of some of the specificities of Wikipedia policy--most new editors haven't yet had the chance to be acquainted with how we define what/who is notable, article formatting (including citations, headings, etc.), and so forth. So with every edit and every page creation or proposal, we must assume that the editor in question has the best intentions in mind and if they have erred, we calmly nudge them towards the right direction in accordance with WP:CIVIL.
  • checkY
  • WP:BLP is a strict set of conditions that must be followed for any article dealing with a living person. High-quality, verifiable sources are a must, and these sources need to have been published and factually accurate, such that WP:NOR will not be an issue. Additionally, a neutral point of view should be used throughout the article and the content of the article must be free of any semblance of biased diction. Any potentially controversial pieces of information would do well to have an inline citation included. Our main goal with WP:BLP articles is to offer an informational outlook on the person being chronicled. It is not our position to lambaste the person or include scandalous or similar details as a tabloid would do.
  • checkY
  • WP:COI outlines Wikipedia policy on what must be done in the instance of an editor(s) who may be connected with the subject area they are interested in. An blatant example of this would be an employee editing the article of the company they work for at the behest of their employer. In these cases, we would warn the editor in question (WP:AGF) and ask them to disclose any potential COIs. Further violations of this policy or a failure to disclose will probably warrant a block. WP:UPE falls under the umbrella of WP:COI and is a more serious variant of a COI violation. Editors who are possibly being paid for their contributions to Wikipedia must disclose all details and parties relating to this payment. Such editors are employed by a PR company or something similar, and edit articles on behalf of a client--usually the subject of the article. Wikipedia mandates full disclosures of any/all conflicts of interest that may interfere with the neutrality of an article.
  • checkY That Coptic Guy, hope everything is ok on your end. I usually don't review portions of a section "Part" until it is completed but I went ahead and reviewed these 3. If you are not going to complete this tutorial, please let me know so I can either close it as incomplete, or leave it open for you to finish. Atsme 💬 📧 09:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)

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

  • Discussions with creators of new pages
  • Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss
  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
  • Wikilove/positive comments

Deletion (Pt. 4)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

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 is sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, please do not 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.

2.

3.

4.

5.

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.

Tips

  • User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool – it adds a small linked menu bar on the top right side of article pages as follows: [ History * Log * Filter * Talk Page * Notice * NPP Flowchart ]
  • 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.

Userbox

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

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

Styx & Stones

Never began the tutorial, last post on WP was 2022-11- 22
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: Styx & Stones, 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.

Curation tool video
Learn the basic flow chart.
When in doubt refer to this flow chart.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the curation tool video in the right margin, and also review 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. You cannot possibly over-ping me.

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. Oh, and here is a suggestion you should consider before you begin. At the bottom of this page is a tip section which is worth reviewing because there are some handy scripts you can add to your user common.js that may prove quite helpful for editing, and reviewing articles.

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 💬 📧 13:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

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

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

Communications (Pt. 3)

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

  • Discussions with creators of new pages
  • Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss
  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
  • Wikilove/positive comments

Deletion (Pt. 4)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

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 is sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, please do not 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 it is crucial to begin your reviews as quickly as possible. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary - take action as you would if you were reviewing them for NPP.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

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.

Tips

  • User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool – it adds a small linked menu bar on the top right side of article pages as follows: [ History * Log * Filter * Talk Page * Notice * NPP Flowchart ]
  • 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.

NPP Forums

Userbox

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

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

Moops

graduated w/trial period 02-20-2023 but indef blocked for socking ;,(
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: Moops, 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.

Curation tool video
Learn the basic flow chart.
When in doubt refer to this flow chart.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the curation tool video in the right margin, and also review 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. You cannot possibly over-ping me.

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. Oh, and here is a suggestion you should consider before you begin. At the bottom of this page is a tip section which is worth reviewing because there are some handy scripts you can add to your user common.js that may prove quite helpful for editing, and reviewing articles.

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 💬 📧 12:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Moops, here is the ping you requested. Take your time and read slowly; Wikipedia has no deadlines. Be mindful of the formatting in this tutorial, and remember that as an NPP reviewer, you will be making judgments that will have an effect on the work of others. Atsme 💬 📧 11:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    I LOVE this by the way... "You cannot possibly over-ping me." :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Good luck with the course, Moops and remember, (a) I have never faked a sarcasm in my life, (b) the only exercise I get is jumping to conclusions, and that (c) to me, "drink responsibly" means don't spill it. I think we'll get along just fine! It's time to start studying. The instructions are in hidden text and follow each subheader. Atsme 💬 📧 20:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    TY. I am reading through now. Lots to read! Speak with you more later.. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Okay, I am ready. Give me the first NPP exercise please. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 04:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    Moops, you may begin with Pt. 1, Notability. Carefully follow the directions you will see in edit view below each subsection title. When you complete Pt. 1, and are satisfied with your answers, be sure to ping me so I will know you finished, and proceed to Pt. 2. Repeat those steps for each Part. Good luck! Atsme 💬 📧 12:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Atsme:, just completed Pt. 2. Please review at your leisure. TY kindly! Looking forward to then moving on to Pt. 3 if/when you approve me to move on from Pt. 2. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 22:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    Finished much of Pt.3, except I have not yet contributed an answer to "Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss"... I am not entirely sure what that is asking. I am sorry. Please direct me to the exact section on that and I'll read up more on it before replying. TY! :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 13:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    Just completed Pt. 4. I will only move on to Pt. 5 when you tell me I am good to go. TY :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    Forgot to @Atsme:.. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    I will begin Pt. 5 only with your approval and go-ahead @Atsme:. TY kindly. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 04:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
    Moops, I have therapy this morning, so I'm running a little behind. Do the 1st 2 subquestions in Pt 5. I will finish grading and then will choose the live reviews I want you to review. Take your time with each review, there is no deadline. Go ahead and tag them and take whatever action you would as a permed reviewer. Atsme 💬 📧 13:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Atsme:. Okie dokie, will do! This is exciting. Nearing the finish line at last. TY so much for all your help and super insightful feedback. Get to therapy then for now. We will discuss more later. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 13:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
    Hi @Atsme:, I have now completed the course. Please review my answers and let me know what you think. This is an exciting day! Up there with weddings and other coming-of-age events! :-D — Moops ⋠T⋡ 22:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    Well that is... if I pass. *sweats nervously* :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 22:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Atsme:, I just completed the second round of the NPP reviews. TY for all your time and help yet again. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 01:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

GNG is essential as a first step in determining if something ought to be allowed to stay up on WP, or if it needs more sources etc. If there are sufficient sources, generally around a minimum of 2–3 sources might suffice, but they MUST be of a reliable sources too. The basics here are: Presumed (meaning that there is no guarantee that something needs its own article with some sources, it might just be sufficient to be a subsection in another article), Significant coverage (meaning the topic is dealt with in a detailed first hand fashion, not a passing mention, though the sources do not need to be ENTIRELY about the subject), Reliable (meaning that the sources in question need to be themselves have "editorial integrity" and thus we can count on them to demonstrate the facts as claimed, also reliable secondary sources are a good show that something is notable, Sources (meaning that when possible secondary sources are much preferred, and primary sources should augment and supplement material, not be the sole sources by any means), Independent of the subject (meaning that the sources are not related directly to the subject, so if I owned a newspaper, and then that newspaper writes about me glowingly, that is not "independent" of me, and would not qualify for determining my own GNG).

  • checkY You've got the basics down. Patrolling is a bit more nuanced. Common sense plays a huge role in determining if something, some place or someone is truly notable. There are people, places, things, events, etc. that may well be notable or noteworthy despite not having "significant" coverage; significant being subjective. When we come across articles that common sense tells us are noteworthy, well-written, but there's only one academic book cited, and it only has a few paragraphs in a single chapter about the person or thing – what then (aside from checking SNG)? First thing we do is ask ourselves why did the author of that article consider the topic notable (read the banner at the top of this tutorial page)? We cannot depend entirely on the internet to provide the sources we need. The core reason for citing sources is to satisfy WP:V and avoid WP:OR, both of which are core content policies. We do not judge the present state of an article, we tag it, or if it has multiple issues, it may need to be draftified, or if we have time, we make contact with the author to encourage them to fix the issues and help guide them along the way. Always keep WP:NEXIST in mind: "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. We can either take it upon ourselves to look for more sources to cite, if we have time, or we use tags to pinpoint the problem(s). There is a big push in the community to accept the fact that WP is not a finished product, so the articles we are reviewing are all a WORK IN PROGRESS. As you well know, volunteers are always adding and improving articles, so we are helping by zeroing in on the problems and tagging the article to let others know what the article needs. Atsme 💬 📧 18:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
That sounds great to me. Thank you for clarifying some of that and for helping me. Also, I love the logo of Wikipedia in that it is an "unfinished puzzle globe" which itself speaks volumes to the nature and spirit of the project in line with what you just said above. So am I good to move on to the next part of NPP school then? TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

More can be found on these here, but in essence some pages have more specific, or somewhat alternate guidelines for what qualifies as notable, that would make sense, and would explain what it is not an "Absolute Notability Guideline" after all, but rather a "General" Notability Guidline." Though SNG alone could be enough for an article, GNG is also still considered and important, generally. This most often comes up with biographies, movies. There are also some other subsets of SNGs that come into play at times for things like academic professors etc.

  • checkY Good response!

This one is especially interesting to me, since there are so many companies out there that do NOT have a page, but that it might commercially benefit them to have a page, so we have to be especially careful here, and also be on the lookout for COI issues since a company might be incentivized to pay an editor (or team of editors), if they could, to get a page written about them. The key though, is that even if this were done, we have rules on what is and isn't going to pass muster, even if some UPE was going. So for instance, no companies or organizations are inherently notable. Beyond that, notability is not inherited. If Elon Musk buys a small restaurant in Texas. Unless that small Texan restaurant is written about by reliable sources in a significant manner, then we would not have a separate page for that restaurant etc.

  • checkY Good answer. This one can be tricky because it involves more than just GNG. We are obligated to WP:AGF, adhere closely to WP:PAG, and make sure the article is written in an encyclopedic tone. Eliminate peacock words and blatant promotional material. It must be encyclopedic, not a catalog advertisement.

Multiple refers to more than one of course, ideally 2 or 3 or more. Plenty of subjects might have been written about a single time by a single source (whether primary or secondary), but that would be no means be sufficient to merit inclusion from a GNG and WP:RS standpoint. Sources are reliable based largely on community consensus and whether or not the source is on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list is a key tool for me. I also think if a source is NOT on this list, might it be problematic, or if not, is it local? Is it independent of the material being covered?

  • checkY Good. You've got the basics. I just want to add that WP:RSP has not been accepted as a guideline by the wider community, and for good reason. In my opinion, it tends to be used politically, although the ones who benefit most by it will likely deny that use, but it's pretty obvious so judge for yourself. I take issue with Al Jazeera, and the South China Morning Post being considered RS, and 99% of conservative sources downgraded to questionable, unreliable, or deprecated. If you don't have sources to cite, that leaves a single POV, and that is bias. Stick to WP:RSN because each case is different. Also see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and the section on my UTP #Useful_quotes wherein Jimbo discusses deprecated sources, along with a few other quotes that will prove beneficial when you're reviewing articles. Atsme 💬 📧
  • Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?

In fairness, even having spent much time in AfD pages and also feeling pretty well versed in all of this, I would still refer back to the flowchart. I read Atul Gawande's book 'The Checklist Manifesto' some years back, and I am a big fan of the idea of using checklists and working through things very systematically in order to ensure that I do not miss anything at all. That all being said, the BASICS are that I would first evaluate the article on basics like being written in English etc, then see what sources are present on the article already or that I can find on the subject from a basic search. Always trying to be optimally helpful and not dismissive of others hard work on this project, then I would evaluate the quality of those sources based on WP:RS guidelines, then I would offer tag the page if need be (or otherwise if the page had serious issues, lacked any sources at all and none could be found, then AfD option), then I would reach out tot he page creator and with a friendly note I would inform them of improvements that might need to be made or tags that I added, then I would mark the page as reviewed/patrolled (is there a difference between the word choice reviewed versus patrolled?). Alternatively, I might also move the article to the draftspace if if was not ready to go live to the main space, and this might be preferable to an AfD of course if the article just needs more sources and would otherwise merit inclusion as an article if more could be found by the creator that has the time and vested interest in bringing the article that they created to public view in the main space.

Thanks. I will admit that WP:IAR is without a doubt the one 'rule' that most confuses me. I don't know when it would apply or when it might not. Frankly, and I will be honest here because I don't see why not to be. It seems to me to be the one rule that is most prone or ripe for 'abuse' by admin that might wish to skirt a certain rule or to exert a bit more pressure in one area or another. I like the concept a whole lot, but it just appears to me to smell like it might be something that WP as a community might wish to rethink a bit. I don't know, and I haven't seen IAR abused, so I am not speaking from any experience here, just more of a 'hunch' if that makes sense... :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Passed Pt. 1

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

  • Moops - the instructions I have provided as hidden text in edit view below each subsection header need to remain in place. Your response should begin below the hidden text per the directions. You are using the correct indent system for each subsection. Just make sure you do not use the hidden text code in your responses. I will review your answers, and IAR concerns tomorrow. You can go ahead and begin Pt. 3. Atsme 💬 📧 00:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    Ah I see. So MY responses shouldn't be hidden text then? Just the instructions? I think I get it now. I will complete Pt. 3 now then. TY kindly for all your help and well worded instructions. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 03:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Assuming good faith is an important behavioral guideline on WP. I like this quote taken from the image on the WP:AGF page. "It's a big mess now, but remember: The editor who spilled this probably wasn't trying to make a mess for you to clean up." This sort of sums it up to me, in short, we should assume that the nature of people, most people, most of the time, is good. Now this one certainly rubs me a bit because I am a regular patroller on the Recent pages and come across dozens of persistent vandals a day, but frankly, it is also my favorite of the guidelines too, because we were all new once and the "don't bite the newcomers" is super important to me as well. We must understand that new editors especially have a pretty herculean task to learn all of the WP policies and guidelines (while also remembering IAR!). I believe that this guideline is more about the spirit of patience, and goodness in all, than anything else. Of course, as someone who regularly reverts vandalism can speak to, this is not a carte blanche pass when it comes to new page patrolling to post whatever, whenever, in however many ways you want. Rather, it just means that we shouldn't jump down other's throats if we (almost invariably) see something that isn't perfect or that even seems annoying or off. Try to help first!
  • Biographies of living people
    The three core policies here of course that are most relevant are WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Beyond these core policies, living persons have laws that (presumably libel related) that could be related to material posted about someone. In short, if something does not have a good, reliable source, the material in question should be excluded. I think this applies to most pages frankly, BUT with BLP's it is just that much more important. No one wants lawsuits, and no one wants to deal with harming the overall project by having material about a living person out there that is not considered reliable. Reliable sources are important and we should look to help new page creators when possible with notifying them of the added concerns related to a BLP.
  • Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)
    I mentioned UPE in another response briefly, but this is something where I feel that a great deal of common sense comes in handy. If we see that a brand new editor comes along, and all they edit is about trying to agressively create a new page such as XYZ Small Mom & Pop Shoppe, and they have not edited anything else, no vandalism reverting, no other pages, nothing... well, then there is a chance that there is some UPE going on. Unfortunately, as it gets more subtle, it gets harder to detect, and this is where I wonder how exactly we are to deal with that in light of assuming good faith? I know I am supposed to be answering these questions and not asking questions myself in my answers, but I just had that thought and would appreciate your input. Also, when it comes to COI, I think we just need to again use common sense and look out for what might be obvious red flags. If someone seems to just be editing on one specific company, or creating a new page, we need to know if they might work for that company or own the company or otherwise be related to an org. Also, it is strongly discouraged of course from people editing their OWN pages. This makes sense to me, as the COI is incredibly strong to whitewash your own content or to add puffery.
  • checkY While paid editing is strongly discouraged, it is not prohibited, and that is where it gets tricky. We need to politely approach suspected UPEs, and continue to AGF, unless they become confrontational. As NPP reviewers, our primary concerns are laid out for us in the charts. If the article is well-written, well-sourced, and follows MOS, we AGF and mark the article reviewed. If it is blatantly promotional, and a COI is suspected, then consider G11. If it's notable, and just needs copyediting, you can choose to fix it, or tag it, preferably using section or inline tags rather than a general header tag that doesn't clearly define anything (make sure to date them). At NPP, we really don't have the time to root out COI and UPE. If it's pretty obvious, file a COIN case for the COI issue. As for the UPE, ask them politely if they are getting paid, and if so, they need to declare it on their User page. In the COIN case, the articles a COI editor worked on should be tagged on the article talk page. Atsme 💬 📧
* Copyright
  • Copyright is taken very seriously on Wikipedia. We need to regularly be on the lookout for content that might be copywritten. This is where a big dose of BEFORE comes in handy, and in particular checking images for possible copyright violations. I know that content could also have been lifted and dropped, so that is another area of concern, though in my experience, if something looks like it was just screenshotted and then dragged and dropped, then it is worth doing some further due diligence and seeing if the content is a copyright violation. Again, we want to keep 'not biting new comers' and 'assume good faith' in mind, but it is also very serious that we do not harm the integrity of the project, or worse, incur legal problems, by ignoring the issues related to intelletctual property laws and Copyright in particular.
  • checkY Your NPP tools (curation tool) will have Earwig readily available for COI checking, and when reviewing articles from the queue, it will automatically have performed a copyvio check advising you if there is any concern. Atsme 💬 📧
  • Hoaxes
    WP is truly an amazing project. That is why I give as much time and energy to the project as I do. I simply love it, and I have been saddened to learn about these various "hoaxes", especially those that last for YEARS at a time. Wow! In general, I feel that this one in some respects covers or has overlap with several of the other policies or guidelines. I think that we need to be sure that the content has reliable sources precisely for the reason that hoaxes, or deliberate acts of misinformation in other words, do not help the reliabilty of the encyclopedia, and even lead to people seeking their information elsewhere and trusting WP less. This harms all of the hard work put in by so many, but in truth, I do not think there are a LOT of people that put substantial effort into making a whole article just as a mere hoax. That is not to say that it is not done, and it is yet another aspect to be on the lookout for, but it is not something that I also think we need to be paranoid about too.
  • Attack pages
    The key to anything resembling an 'attack page' is to nominate for speedy deletion immediately upon recognizing a page of this nature. I sure have come across a lot of nasty filth in my time as a recent pages patroller, and it would not surprise me to see people creating whole pages wholly with the intent to attack or disparage other editors, real life people, companies, religions, atheists, gays, Jews, or any number of other things that people might choose to hate on or 'attack' on any given day. Sources are another key here, as the official policy itself says, "that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced", clearly the "unsourced or poorly sourced" aspect is critical as well. Some persons or ideas have substantial secondary source material disparaging them, and this might be valid then, and not an attack page. So it comes down to understanding if the material is verifiable, NPOV, and sourced adequately.
  • checkY Good job! I also want to add that attack pages may also be created as a result of one's political beliefs. Editors are required to leave their biases at login, so when/if you come across any blindingly obvious BLP vios, which generally occur during an important election year, so while you are still learning, seek a 3rd opinion from a seasoned reviewer. Those articles can be become a minefield for unsuspecting NPP reviewers, particularly if the article is about someone or something considered political opposition. WP's systemic bias leans left; therefore, depending on how badly the page has been presented, reviewers are better off simply tagging articles they consider noncompliant with NPOV or BLP rather than walking through that minefield in an attempt to neutralize them. Atsme 💬 📧 12:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Passed Pt 2 - well done, Moops. I see you started Pt. 3, but have not completed it, so take your time. Ping me when done, and proceed to Pt. 4. Atsme 💬 📧 12:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Atsme:, I would finish it except I need a hint on where to look for the one titled 'Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss'... Please and thank you! :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Moops, my reference to automated vs manually could probably use an update for more clarity. Automated refers to template notifications vs starting a live discussion on the talk page (either article TP or User TP) and interacting one on one with the article creator. Atsme 💬 📧 22:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah I see. I just always hear those referred to as "template notifications" as in "don't template the regulars." TY, I will now complete Pt. 3. TY kindly once again. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 23:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)

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

  • Discussions with creators of new pages

It is very important to notify new editors, in a friendly manner, of any new tags added, or if you nominate their page for AfD if it comes to that, or anything else added or changed. Also, if additional sources may be needed or anything else, a very friendly and polite note needs to be mentioned on their talk page. All discussions should be helpful, or 'constructive criticism' at worst, unless we are dealing with very obvious issues such as blatant vandalism or so called 'patent nonsense.'— Moops ⋠T⋡ 13:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Automated Template notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

Now that I know what this means, (TP Atsme for clarifying), I can more properly answer this question. I would say that this again refers back to some good judgment, but some other factors come into play as well. For one, if the editor that has created a new page is quite senior, with substantial experience in editing, I almost always work to just manually notify/discuss. Personally, I tend to do this in most cases anyway, as even with newer editors, I have found many a person to find it almost offensive to be "templated", though the "don't template the regulars" comes into play much more of course with...well... the regulars! In summation, I think that when one has the time, it is helpful to initiate a manual notification versus automatic (or templated notification as I might have referred to it), regardless of the editor or user experience level. Though brand new editors might find the template of use, after all, they were not created for no reason at all! So for someone that is brand new, or that appears as if they would benefit from one particular template or another, I would said template accordingly. TY— Moops ⋠T⋡ 23:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Atsme:, Also, I might say, "Template notifications and/or when to manually notify/discuss"... just as a minor wording change in my humble opinion. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • checkY Well said! I updated the terminology, so thank you for your input! Atsme 💬 📧
  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

It is very important that we use a positive, clear, and constructive tone whenever and whereever possible. New page reviewers are the front lines of new pages coming to Wikipedia, and we neither want to discourage new editors, nor do we want to allow garbage onto the platform. This is a balance of course, and the 'assume good faith' principle of course is there to help lead us with patience, compassion, and with the knowledge what we can impart to newer editors or any page really that we see lacking in one way or another, as long as the message is delivered in a positive and caring manner, it should hopefully be well received. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 13:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Wikilove/positive comments

I for one, love Wikilove and positive comments. The environment around Wikipedia sometimes gets stale and stuffy, and that is obviously not my style (just look at my talk page, you even borrowed the fly from my page, and I think I borrowed the tilted TOC from yours!). I know though that some would argue that we should be careful not to 'overdo it', frankly, I personally believe that that would be difficult to do, and a mentality of 'not overdoing it' with love seems to then lead to an atrophy of love generally because then some editors fear sending wikilove at ALL, but I digress, in some cases, and especially when asked not to send such love, then I will not send love. However, short of being specifically asked not to send love, then the hugs, beers, baklava, and more from Moops will be abundant and forthcoming. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 13:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY Well said. Keep in mind that a little goes a long way. I don't want to discourage you from being friendly, outgoing, polite, and sharing the joy you feel, but you also have to keep in mind that we are dealing with a variety of people of different cultures, customs, and personalities. Some may actually consider such gestures overly "forward" and see it is an intrusion so it always better to start with small gestures, and maintain a safe level of modesty. Also keep in mind that the work you will be doing is going to keep you very busy if you're doing it correctly. Atsme 💬 📧

Warning templates can be jarring to see appear on your page, that said, that provide a valuable function of instructing new users (and experienced ones, though with more care sometimes) with the right corrective nudge in the right direction so that they are best able to contribute to the encyclopedia productively, and learn the best tactics, style, MOS, and generally how to operate on WP early on. I believe there is more potential risk though to overusing warning templates than there is to overdoing wikilove, but maybe that is just me. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 13:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY I agree with your sentiment, but at the same time, warnings are exactly what you said..."jarring". Depending on the depth and interpretation of what may appear to be an ill-willed action by an article creator, I approach it more like I would approach entering the ocean from a beach where I cannot see the bottom. Enter slowly as you find your comfort level, and then decide if you should go for a swim rather than diving straight in. Caution doesn't hurt anyone unless you're at a jewelry auction, and miss that Presidential Rolex that just sold for $300 because you waited too long. 😁 Atsme 💬 📧 00:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    Wow, do you attend jewelry auctions!? That sounds fun, stressful, and exhilarating! :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Passed Pt 3 - Very well done!!

Deletion (Pt. 4)

Moops - you are free to begin Pt. 4 Atsme 💬 📧 01:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

An article can and should be nominated for deletion when appropriate, though care should always be exercised so that we do not get 'trigger happy' with our nominations (i.e. an article really could be improved instead of an AfD... then improvement should certainly be pursued instead). Some of the key items to consider for eligibility, or some of the most obvious at least, include (but are not exclusive to): obvious vandalism, copyright issues, patent non-sense, obvious self promotion/spam, articles with no sources or where GNG is so clearly failed and no sources can be found anywhere, articles with issues related to BLP's, along with other reasons that violate policies. In general, and has been perhaps the theme of my time at the 'NPP school' with my awesome 'teacher' Atsme ;), I would say that common sense and good judgement goes a long way here. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY Great answer. ;-) Consideration for others goes a long way. Keep in mind, some copyvios can readily be fixed, so if common sense tells you it's a worthy article, and it is not a massive copyvio, WP:FIXIT.

The WP:BEFORE notion I have heard about a lot in my early days of editing, as it is something that newer editors and contributors really need to be reminded of I feel. In short, 'BEFORE refers to all of the different things that one ought to do BEFORE taking actions in regards to a new page being reviewed especially (though I think of it also as the idea that one should really 'stop and think' before doing anything that could really result in upsetting another editor as well. BEFORE is about the things though that you specifically need to keep in mind BEFORE nominating an article for deletion, which as I already said, could really rile up another editor... especially if they put a lot of time and effort into it. Here are some of the key things to consider BEFORE nominating a page for AfD: 1. "Read and understand policies and guidelines". Easier than it sounds... many people do not like to read. 2. "Carry out certain checks", these "checks" include things like seeing whether or not the article should be speedy deleted or speedy kept, or something other than the longer (and more involved in terms of collective editor time) AfD communal process; view the articles history and see what was going on there... sometimes there is vandalism or other issues present, you can also check the editors that have been involved if the page was previously a redirect or a draft etc., also checking the TP and other places where relevant information about the page may exist; the 'what links here' sidebar link is also super helpful for checking for other 'footprints' or 'fingerprints' that a page might have; also... and this is definitely the most time consuming, but looking for other language relavant material.

Adding tags, communicating with the creator, and otherwise looking for all possible alternatives BEFORE an AfD is part of this process. Finding other sources may ultimately be up to the creator, but we can help, and do some basic due diligence, instead of simply stating "not enough sources" and nominating for an AfD too... — Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion, which I will mention below when appropriate, has some pretty clear cut cases as to when appropriate. A PROD is simply a 'proposed deletion' procedure for when it is not controversial, but also does not meet the requirements for speedy. AfD's are not cool with a PROD, it is one or the other, not both. In the case of an AfD, there is expected to be some discussion around the deletion (or the vote to keep) and a resolution will be met with. With a PROD, ideally, there is no expectation that there will be any controversy, or even any question really as to the deletion, but the article/page in question still does not meet the super clear and strict rules for a speedy deletion. Of course key aspects here involve tagging the page, notifying the creator (don' want any "oops from Moops" that I didn't notify the creator!). I understand further that if anyone has an issue with the PROD, thats it, back to square one, the kibosh is put on that PROD. There is a 7-day wait for the PROD to be reviewed and ultimately deleted by an admin. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 14:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A WP:Soft delete refers to a page that has completed its time in the 7-day-gulag waiting period and is then eligible to be deleted, but there hasn't yet been sufficient discussion really around the page, so if anyone then later voices an objection, it can be undone with a request put in at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Redirects are another option and should be kept in mind generally over just deletes, whether soft or of the hardened variety. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY Also keep draftify in mind. It is a useful option which allows article creators to spend more time getting their article ready for namespace. In some of these cases, a little guidance from NPP is time well spent. Send them to the Tea House if they need help. Atsme 💬 📧 13:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

SOFTSP brings immediately to mind WP:WWIN, and in particular the segment about Wikipedia not being a dictionary, or any number of other things that are not encyclopedic, but that may still warrant intellectual value to the human species. Social media/social network elements are also part of the WP:WWIN scope, but those are not included here, this is merely for things that are of value, just not for the project that we are working on called Wikipedia. Wiktionary is a dictionary, obviously, and one of the so named 'sister projects' of Wikipedia. I personally have done little to nothing over there, I am more interested in building an encyclopedia, but I say "more power to you!" to any of the good folks working on the dictionary that anyone can edit (unless they have a different tag line!?). In the event that a page will never merit more than just a mere dictionary definition, or seems likely to be that way, then a soft redirect pointing to wiktionary might be most appropriate versus any other option. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Ahhh, and here we are. The 'Criteria for speedy deletion'! This one needs to be handled with care, probably more so than the others. I imagine given the 'speedy' nature more than anything else, we as a community wanted rules in place so that abuse from the deletionists would not pervade on this front. With a PROD, there is that 7-day period that I mentioned earlier, but with this, well, it could be quite "speedy" of course. Nearly instant if a user with the right perms gets to it right away. To actually go about nominating an article for speedy deletion, you just need to use the appropriate template, found here Wikipedia:Template index/Speedy deletion. Lots of the WP:BEFORE logic comes into play here, BEFORE ever doing this, one should still consider other possible options if and when at all possible in any way. That said, this one comes up in the more fringe cases of obvious vandalism, patent non-sense etc. etc. so if something like that is apparent, then there isn't harm in being 'speedy' about a 'speedy deletion' template being added so that an admin can take the appropriate action...speedily. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY Ahhh is an understatement. NPP reviewers spend the time necessary for WP:BEFORE. Admins do not. They see those noms at face value, so if it is not blatantly obvious, skip the speedy and send it to AfD. Just keep a close eye on your deletion log. You want way fewer failures and far more successes on your log.
 Passed Pt. 4 Atsme 💬 📧 13:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The 'log' being those AfD's that I initiate, that ultimately did result in the page successfully being deleted you are saying? TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

Tagging can be a problem if done in a manner where there is absolutely zero vested interest in a page, as in "drive-by tagging" as I have heard it referred to before, however in general, Wikipedia is the "people's encyclopedia" and tagging should not be discouraged if in fact it is in good faith (which we always assume in general too, given 'assume good faith'). Tagging should be made appropriately though, and sometimes a new editor may use the wrong or perhaps not the best suited tag to a particular problem or set of problems. In this regard we can help to instruct newer editors as to the type of tag that should be applied, and when appropriate, remove the tags that no longer are relevant. The date of the tag should reflect the earliest possible time that the exact and specific problem presented itself, in this way, we can all see when the problem first originated and then remove the tag only when the issue identified in the tag has fully (or mostly) been resolved. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 15:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY style="background: #BFD; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="yes2 table-yes2"| Good. Inline and section tags zero-in on particular issues are much better than a general header tag which usually to leads to confusion and issues not getting proper attention. Few gnomes will stop to read an entire article in an effort to the issues. If you can narrow it down to sections that need a tag or even closer, such as a statement that is dubious[dubious – discuss] and needs clarity.[clarification needed] I keep this list handy. Atsme 💬 📧 00:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Categorization helps users to find pages across different...well, 'categories'...that share similar aspects or fields of work in common. Some editors have used the addition of 'cats' as categories are called for short, as a means of helping to add enormous quantities of edits to pages across huge numbers of pages. The number one highest edit count editor is in this 'category' for instance, according to the list of editors by number of edits found here. Of course, number of edits is only a loose criteria for understanding if someone is a quality editor or not, and that is not even the prompt for this part of Pt. 5, so I will get back to the subject at hand. Categories are helpful, and several should be added if possible. I don't know if you can really 'overdo' it with categories, just as long as the cat being added is still relevant, pertinent, and helpful to anyone that might come across the content of the page or similar content. A lot of pages also have "See also" sections on them, which serve as a way to link to direct other pages of relevance that are not otherwise listed in a wikilink on the page content itself. Categories do not link to specific individual pages of course, but rather to whole topics which may list dozens, or even hundreds of other individual pages for a user/reader/editor to explore. I really like the example given of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, which has its own article, , and even template. I am not expert on what a 'template' would be in this case there? Perhaps you can explain that to me Atsme, and what value or purpose it may serve? :) Okay, that concludes my comments for Parts 1–5 then. TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  • The templates are collapsed near the bottom of the page after external links, and comprise a list of all articles relative to that particular topic or event. In this instance, it includes TL:Slavery and Template:John Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry. Those types of templates provide a more in-depth history of the topic, and major events of that era, such as the Civil War. It doesn't appear those 2 templates are transcluded so they can be edited directly. See the V*T*E on the left of the template bar in collapsed mode. Click on V to see the template doc, T is for that template's TP and to make suggestions, and E is for editing the template. When you don't see the V*T*E, it is likely a transcluded template that cannot be edited directly. We'll do the live exercises tomorrow.
  • checkY  Passed 1st half of Pt 5 - Moops, we'll do the live reviews tomorrow morning. Don't be timid about using the chart. Atsme 💬 📧 00:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    Sounds good. An 'open book' exam then of sorts. :)
    I am looking forward to it. This has been one of the most enjoyable experiences of my time editing Wikipedia! — Moops ⋠T⋡ 15:44, 16 February 2023 (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 is sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, please do not 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 it is crucial to begin your reviews as quickly as possible. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary—take action as you would if you were reviewing them for NPP.

Ok, Moops here we go. Atsme 💬 📧 15:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I have an appointment that I am about to go to actually. But as soon as I return I'll get through these. If I miss some and then need to get new ones, that is okay I hope? — Moops ⋠T⋡ 15:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, since I do not have the perm itself, how/where do I take the actions that I feel I would take? I guess somethings do not require the NPP perm (like adding tags, nominating for AfD etc., but actually marking as reviewed, I don't think I can do, so what there?). TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 15:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Do what you can at the article, and then explain here what you would have done with the new user right, which will include access to the curation tool, (you have already reviewed how it works) and possibly once you've gotten some experience, the move to draftify right. Atsme 💬 📧 15:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


1. Brian Kite

So following protocol and the flowchart, I first dove into this page, and think you gave me a fairly straightforward one. I looked at the numerous provided sources. Also hit 'view history' to see the history and do all my proper due diligence. I found that this page was actually dated back to 2007! So certainly nothing new, but that also doesn't guarantee that it doesn't have problems. That said, I honestly think anything that I would be adding here would be more for 'the sake of it' related to my learning exercise, versus me actually thinking it needs much. The sources are numerous and from reputable enough places that the content can be taken as credible and reliable, even if not necessarily on the RS perennial list. Overall, I would make this as a reviewed, and send a note to the creator telling them that they did decent work. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY Good response! Also, see my caution template under the Tips section re: perennial list. Do not make it a crutch; rather, use common sense, WP:V, and WP:RS. If you're still timid about making a decision because you are not sure of a source, tag the article with[better source needed]. Remember WP:RSN and WP:RS are guidelines that supersede RSP which is just a summary of individual discussions at RSN, some of which were not well-populated. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Atsme 💬 📧 21:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    I will need to save this lesson page that I had with you as a bookmark for me to refer back to for all time. I have learned SO much. TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 21:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Moops, once a student is given the user right, I permanently archive the lesson, and will provide the link for you once that's done. In the interim, you are welcome to come back here to refresh your memory. I am confident that you will continue to grow as an NPP reviewer because you have an excellent attitude, you're smart, you have good common sense & critical thinking skills, and you love what you're doing. I hope that wonderful energy stays with you for the long term! Atsme 💬 📧 23:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

2. Diego Vega

Looks as if editor Onel5969 beat me to this one in terms of the tags. I largely agree with what they added. This article could use some improvement as it relates to needing more reliable sources to prove notability. I then left a friendly not for user named nohat [[2]], and explained to them that the page is already tagged for extra sources related to Diego Vega, and acknowledged that I was not templating the user because of course they are a very senior editor and have clearly been at this since around 2006 or earlier. Wow! I had also looked to the Dutch WP, since that is where this article was supposed to have come from, but did not find anything further with a reasonable amount of search time given, which I also noted and hope the creator will be able to work on further. This article could use some copy editing too, and I added the tag for that. The one other issue is that the editor, though senior, that created this page, doesn't seem to be active anymore. Or at least much less active, since he was warned about possibly losing admin permissions due to making fewer than 100 edits over the past FIVE years! I make more than that most days! Overall though, this doesn't merit an AfD and certainly not a speedy delete in my estimation, at least not yet (AfD), given the tags that are now present. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Moops, you are not required to do so, but it would be helpful for you to fix some of the glaring issues, like MOS:REALTIME (a pet-peeve of mine, as are dabs). However, the reason for my conditional yes applies to the BLP's notability. Granted, the BLP is not a tenured professor, but he is a notable published composer with limited recognition (but still worthy of being noted because of his "body of work", the awards, and his contributions to music on a global scale). See the banner at the top of this training page, Notability in a nutshell, and keep it in mind. FYI, a good go-to editor when it comes to classical music and composition is GerdaArendt, who may prove helpful whenever doubt arises in this topic area. In situations of questionable notability, you have several options to consider:
  1. take the time to eliminate your doubt by finding the necessary sources and verifying notability, (you have access to WP:TWL which gives you access to a whole new world of sources), and WP:FIXIT;
  2. seek the opinions of an expert in the topic area, or reach out to qualified reviewers at NPP, so you will feel more confident about your decision to either keep & tag (hopeful fix), or nom the article for AfD (or PROD, or whatever else fits).
  • Try not to be the reviewer of uncertainty who becomes the "drive-by tagger", leaving the work for others. A big advantage of our NPP queue is the ability to choose the types of articles we want to review. The curation tool provides a few more advantages. Use them wisely. Atsme 💬 📧 11:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
    Okay, thank you so much for that feedback. Also, there is SO MUCH to the MOS, I am still always learning about deep aspect of it that I was not familiar with. I get better every single day though hopefully, even if not yet perfect. ;) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

3. Medwin Publishers

This looks to be the first one on my list that I really tried to save, but just couldn't. I tend to lean towards not being a deletionist when it comes to content, meaning that IF something can possibly be saved (by demonstrating clear notability with relevant and credible sources etc etc), I try to do that first. However, this page seems to be in part a hit piece against the subject matter, and it may well be merited or not, but we cannot tell from the sources. I did a review on google for more sources, and I could not find anything sufficiently independent of the source matter itself. After further searching for another 15 minutes or so, I decided that it was time to cut bait and move on, and I nominated this for an AfD. I used Twinkle, so it automatically notifies the creator with a template. In this case, the template is also appropriate in my view because the editor that made this page is rather new. I noticed that they seem to be making other pages of this type about smaller online 'publishing' houses, and were warned by user Rosguill about another page that they made too. I then looked at that page, which had similar concerns to this one, but for my purposes right now, and for the sake of finishing out the NPP specifically, I am limiting my answer to the scope of the 5 pages that you asked about exclusively. TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 21:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY Good job! I am also of the mind that you should probably include Jacobs Publishers as a note to the closer (which may require an administrator) because both of these articles appear to be spammers. The editor who adding these sources should probably be reviewed by an administrator. Obviously based in India, they have secured a US mailing address only. The editor is probably registering under different user names and I would not be surprised if they are adding more of these predatory journals to WP. Atsme 💬 📧 01:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
    TY kindly. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 06:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

4. 2023 Channel One Trophy

This page was tricky. You are picking some really good ones Atsme! You clearly have done this before! This page relied on mostly Russian language sources, so it was difficult and time consuming to test each source for reliabilty and see how they each looked and then test for reliability. I went to the page's view history too, and saw that this page is certainly newer (January creation, so not hyper new as in created yesterday, but also not old) and that most or nearly all of the edits thus far have been made by the creator. I left a friendly notice on the creators page (seen here. I also looked deeply into the 'What links here' page to see if in fact this would serve better as a redirect itself or perhaps just learn more about the page and the backend of the page. I found that there is another similar page, 2022 Channel One Trophy that demonstrates a history of pages of this nature, and source material style. Overall, I think this page is roughly fine as is without need for an AfD or major changes as a basic, informational, notable, encyclopedic page for those looking to find it that meets the minimum standards we set for all pages of this type. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 22:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY Well done. Good going, Moops! You are doing WP:BEFORE quite well, and that's a good sign. There is also a main page referenced in those articles, so I took a minute and added the main page where it was missing, and there a short description on one of the articles. The primary editor/article creator took the time to create the necessary templates, including a nav template. It is obviously a nationally televised sporting event that is clearly notable in Russia, and may even have some connection to the Olympic ice skating championships - I did not dig that deep. Atsme 💬 📧 11:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

5. The Haunted House: The Sky Goblin VS Jormungandr

Okay here we go again with the foreign language pages! Thanks Atsme! It IS good practice though, so I am glad that I will get this out of the way nice and early. This one was entirely sourced in South Korean language sources. I pointed out to the user that created this page also that perhaps his or her page would be better suited for the Korean language wikipedia, and I linked to that accordingly as seen here, but note that even in another language, sources still matter. The history of this page demonstrates that it was nominated for a draft before, and frankly, I think that is where it belongs still until it can be bolstered with more content and sources that are appropriate to the material. It seems the creator is trying to push it back into th mainspace at times, without looking at the tags added as much or without major improvements made to the page. I actually reverted their latest edits that moved it back into the mainspace and returned it to the draftspace. I also notified the creator of this. Otherwise, I do not foresee that this page will likely soon merit inclusion as its own page on the EN:WP. The editor does appear to be acting in good faith though, which of course I will continue to assume until given evidence to believe otherwise. TY— Moops ⋠T⋡ 22:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Conditional yesCY I went ahead and tagged the article, and marked it reviewed. There were too many times it was draftified and nothing changed. Maybe more will get done with my approach, but before I get into that, when you reverted, you simply added back the "moved from draft" template, so a bot came along and removed the tag again. The article was still in namespace because reverting is not the same action as moving to draft space. After tagging, I went to WP:WikiProject Animation and put them on notice about the article and the new editor. I then went back and created the article TP, and included the WP:WikiProject Animation template so they can assess the article, and hopefully do what needs to be done, including providing some guidance to that editor. With 2 conditional yes results, we're going to do 5 more live reviews. Atsme 💬 📧 17:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
    Ah I just read this response in the wrong order. That answers my other question about how many to do. TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

2nd round NPP exercise

Ok, Moops, here you go! Atsme 💬 📧 18:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  • I struck through the selections because another reviewer reviewed them today so Moops, ping me when you are ready to begin the exercise and I will select 5 more Atsme 💬 📧 14:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Atsme:, I will be free from around 2pm ET today onwards (NPP school mentions you are on ET, so I translated time zone for you). So if you have them ready for me then onwards, I will have these final 5 done today (unless there are even more to do after these 5? How many in total are required? Or is it really just until you see that I can competently and professionally review, no matter the number?). TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
    Moops I am currently on AST which is an hour ahead of EST. We will be doing these exercises until I feel confident that you are ready to be on your own. None of us are perfect, and it helps to get input if you have the slightest doubt. After you graduate, and come across an article that raises some doubt as to the action, please do not hesitate to use Talk at NPP, or Discord where quite a few active reviewers and a few admins hang out. Ping me when you read this note, and I will add 5 more reviews for you. Atsme 💬 📧 11:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Atsme:.. I am free the rest of the evening. Please upload the 5 any time now. TY kindly.
    Also, that is good advice. That even once "graduated" I can always continue to improve. My aim is to be more 'conservative' than not, and get feedback when and where I deem it necessary. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 23:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    Moops here you go! Atsme 💬 📧 23:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks, I see just one new one. Are we doing one at a time so they don't get reviewed somehow before me? I'll tackle 'State Disaster Response Force Uttar Pradesh' now. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 23:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    Nope, it takes time for me to pick the ones you need to review. Oh, and 'fore I 4get, if the article has no TP, go ahead and create one, and add the TP header and relative WikiProject banner(s). Atsme 💬 📧 00:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    Always? I have seen some editors scolded by senior editors in the past for adding those to many pages that did not have them prior. I felt it was a pretty harmless add in my view, but it was seen as spamming or gaming the system as part of editcountitis etc. etc. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    Also, what about if I move the article from the main space to the draft space, such as Mansoor Ahsan, should I still add a TP before it is ready, or no? I think not, but if I should, then I'll add those more in the future even if I end up moving them to the draft space. TY kindly Atsme. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

6. State Disaster Response Force Uttar Pradesh I moved this article back from the main space to draft space, as it now exists here: Draft:State Disaster Response Force Uttar Pradesh. I looked for sources, found nothing substantive beyond what was already present, which was inadequate for this article to be in the main space from a notability standpoint. I notified the two editors involved in this, which to be honest, look somewhat socky, but that is another item and I don't think it is too blatant to report at this stage. I noticed that the article had been moved from the main space to draft space twice previously, and that the article had not been sufficiently improved since those two other NPP reviewers moved it from main to draft space. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

7. Mansoor Ahsan I moved this article to the draft space from the main space as it also currently lacked sufficient sources. Looked into the history, and found that it was also attempted to be pushed before it was ready a couple of times. From a WP:BEFORE standpoint, it looks like it just lacks mostly the right independent sources that it needs and none are revealing themselves on the internet to me. I notified the editor on his/her talk page. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY That works because as a standalone article N is a debatable question. He's notable for the bridge, but not notable enough to have been included in the Dart orange line article? That sends the message that his work was not anything over and above what the company hired him to do; therefore, WP:MILL. There are a lot of engineers, architects, etc. who build and design big projects, like the Golden Gate Bridge and Joseph Strauss, who is notable and is included in the bridge article. See my point? Right now Mansoor qualifies as WP:MILL. I think maybe a paragraph about him in the DART orange line article about his contribution might be warranted - see if it sticks - and create a redirect to that paragraph. Atsme 💬 📧 11:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

8. The Other One (1977 TV series) I made some minor copy edits to this article, but based on the somewhat different standards that exist for a TV series, I think that this would merit inclusion and is sourced sufficiently based on what I could find as well. I am working hard to remember your masthead, and thus also use my own best judgement and not just blanket standards that might bias bigger things etc. I would mark this as reviewed after the copy edits that I made if I had the NPP perm. I also added a new talk page on this one, with the relevant WikiProject attached. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

9. Stanford CodeX Center I reviewed, added a talk page with the relevant WikiProject, and looked for added sources. It really does not merit its own stand alone article, but the material may fit better within the broader Stanford University page. I created an AfD but made it clear that I am suggesting a merge and not just outright deletion. I clicked to notify the creator of the page per standard protocol. See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford CodeX Center — Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

10. Dr. Livesey (Treasure Island 1988) This one took me some time because once I first looked at it, I went down a secondary rabbit whole after googling and learning about the subject. Does that ever happen to you? It is perhaps one of my favorite things about Wikipedia is how much you learn about quite literally EVERYTHING under the sun! Anyway, I noticed that this article was primarily translated from the Russian Wiki, but that if you look at the sources, it seems adequately sourced, once translated and reviewed (as I did), and I would have approved this as reviewed in the main space as is. It has the relevant categories, wikiprojects etc. So the optional steps at the end of the flowchart are also already checked. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 01:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY It happens to me all the time, Moops. It contributed to the reason I'm teaching now. It's fun to learn, but people need to learn the correct information which places a big responsibility on reviewers and article creators because, in essence, we are making decisions about what is worthy of being learned. I take my volunteer work seriously, as I'm confident you do as well, especially when it is of the magnitude of Wikipedia. Atsme 💬 📧 12:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Evaluation

  • I will begin by saying Moops was an excellent student. He has the intestinal fortitude (has what it takes) to be an NPP reviewer, and appears to have the time and energy to do the job well. He is dedicated to his work, he understands WP:BEFORE and WP:PAG. His decisions have been good decisions overall, including reviews of a few tagged articles to see if the tags were a proper fit, and what options were available. I was very pleased with his responses, and the actions he took. Atsme 💬 📧 12:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Tips

  • User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks – very useful tool – it adds a small linked menu bar on the top right side of article pages as follows: [ History * Log * Filter * Talk Page * Notice * NPP Flowchart ]
  • 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 somewhat 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.

NPP Forums

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_6&oldid=1151677768"