User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Atsme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
User:Blaze Wolf
  Passed May 2, 2023
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
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.
Instructions: Blaze Wolf, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:
  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 💬 📧 12:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Blaze Wolf, simply explain to me, in a few paragraphs, what you know about the guidelines in each subsection (under each bullet point). Please maintain the current formatting throughout as I will be adding comments after your summaries. I want you to convince me that you have a good understanding of those guidelines and what is or is not notable, why it is or isn't, etc. IOW, what is your takeaway after reading them? Sharing what you have gleaned from the guidelines demonstrates to me your potential to become an efficient NPP reviewer, and if you actually understand the guidelines as intended, and can make the determination if a topic is notable or not. Atsme 💬 📧 13:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Read this explanatory essay, and see if it brings some clarity to Pt 3. Atsme 💬 📧 15:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Notability (Pt. 1)The topic of notability in general is really dependent on the rest of the things in this section. However, notability as a whole is something that editors will often use to decide if a topic is suitable for an article. Webster's dictionary defines notable as meaning "worthy of note: remarkable" and one of the synonyms they list is "noteworthy" which to me describes the general concept of notability quite well even if it's not exactly what Wikipedia fully defines it as. In order for something to even begin to be notable according to Wikipedia's criteria, it has to be "worthy of note", meaning that it's something that is worthy of being noticed by others. Just because an article is notable by definition doesn't mean it's worthy of an article as there's also WP:NOT which can, in a sense, override a topic's notability due to the topic being unsuitable for an encyclopedia entry. Even if it doesn't go against WP:NOT it still might not be worthy of an article since it may be better suited as part of a pre-existing article. The general notability guideline is usually the base for determining whether or not an article is notable, though there are some specific notability guidelines that override this one. The vast majority of topics must meet at least the GNG before any other SNGs are considered (with some exceptions as I just described). The very first sentence of GNG states this, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." To break this down, I'm going to go by the words that are italicized. First, is presumed. Wikipedia uses the legal definition of presumed which Webster's dictionary says that it means "to suppose to be true without proof" and in fact, if you scroll a little farther down, the dictionary highlights one of the key differences between presuming and assuming something, which is that presuming something is when you are making a guess based on reasonable evidence, while assuming something is when you are making a guess with little to no evidence, which brings me to my next point (or I guess 2 since this is a great segue to the topic after the next!). Significant coverage and reliable sources. Significant coverage means that the topic is discussed directly and in detail so OR isn't required, but that doesn't mean it has to be the main topic. Reliable sources play into the difference between presuming and assuming, in that reliable sources are secondary sources (which don't have to be online, though in the modern day that is preferable) which usually have enough editorial integrity for the information to be verifiable (usually meaning that the source has an editorial team and isn't known for making a lot of mistakes or just making stuff up). The sources also don't have to be written in English, though it is preferable that they are since this is the English Wikipedia and most people here only speak English. A source that is independent of the subject means that the source isn't directly connected to the subject of the article, whether that be a source written by them or someone who has a strong affiliation with them. Subject specific notability guidelines are notability guidelines that help clarify when an article on a specific topic is notable. They usually have the same criteria as GNG with additions relating to what is considered independent in relation to the subject. In addition SNGs can also help clarify when an article should and should not be create, such as in the case of the SNG regarding films. It provides guidance for when an article on a future film should be created based on various determining factors. However not all SNGs have to also pass GNG, such as in the case for the SNGs for academics and professors as well as geographic features, which the one for academics and professors specifically states that it's an alternative to GNG meaning that the subject has to pass either GNG or the SNG.
WP:ORG (because I don't wanna type out the full name) is an SNG relating to the notability of organizations and companies. It has the same criteria as GNG, however it specifically states that there is no inherent notability or inherited notability. While those may sound the same they are both different. Inherent notability basically means that the subject is notable just because it exists. Inherited notability means the subject is notable because another subject that is directly related to them is notable. It provides various examples of trivial coverage and also substantial coverage to aid users in figuring out what is and isn't trivial.
The notability for video games isn't a formal SNG due to it being from a Wikiproject, however it is still technically an SNG. It has the same basic criteria of GNG and it also details what is independent in regards to video games, while also noting that older or international releases will most likely not be easily available online. It also covers how awards and nominations should be determined for their notability as well as how the notability for a derivative game release should be determined with a chart that makes it easier to see what it is saying.
I consider a source reliable when they either have an about me page that states that they have been around for a while and states they have an editorial team, or the about me shows that people use them a lot as well as other sources confirm it and they have a page in which it shows who all is on their editorial team. Usually if it's a newspaper or website I've heard of before they are most likely reliable (with of course some exceptions such as CNET no longer being reliable due to the AI issues among other things). "Multiple" usually depends on the topic, however for me the baseline for multiple is 3 reliable sources (which, while that is an essay, usually the number 3 is the one used when determining notability). If you can provide me with at least 3 reliable sources then I will consider that the article has at least baseline notability.
Well first, before I even begin reviewing any of the content, I do a quick skim of the article to see how long it is (length isn't a criteria for notability, however it can be an indication as to whether or not it is notable), then I will see what sources are cited and how many. I have some userscripts installed that show me which sources are reliable and which are not by highlighting them in different colors (although one of them sometimes seems to just highlight whatever the hell it wants to sometimes) so I will use those to show me which of the sources might be helpful for determining notability. Next I will go through the article and see what the sources are attached to and if there are any large chunks of completely unsourced information (the exception would be the gameplay section of a video game which can use the game itself as the source and therefore does not require any actual sources per something
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)Assume good faith is a principle that is important to editor retention and the entire project on Wikipedia (and is also a good principle to follow off of Wikipedia as well). Assuming good faith is when you assume that someone is attempting to be helpful even if they may not be unless there is clear evidence otherwise. An example would be if someone corrects a grammar mistake in a comment you post on a talk page. If you were to assume good faith you would either leave it be (if you don't mind people doing things like that) or to revert them and leave a note on their talk page stating that while some people might appreciate the grammar edit, the usual guideline is to not do that as they may not have been aware of the guideline. Assuming bad faith would be to revert them and tell them off for doing so telling them that they should not have done it, which can end up with that user leaving the project. This is also known as biting the newcomers, which is something seen as bad for the project.
The policy for biographies of living (or recently deceased people) is one of the stricter policies on Wikipedia due to the impact it has. It's one of the stricter policies due to them being about people that are real and are very much still alive and can read the article, and because they are notable they are most likely able to take legal action if they absolutely need to. Articles regarding BLPs must also take care to regard the privacy of the subject. Usually parts of a subject's personal information (such as their age, height, weight, etc.) aren't readily available or only appear in a small number of sources then they generally should not be included. Labeling people as things such as a "nazi" or other things should be avoided unless the subject is often described as such in multiple reliable sources (multiple in this case meaning much more than 3) such as in the article for Kanye West in which there are 2 reliable sources supporting that he described himself as a nazi in the lead, with an additional 3 sources later in the article where it states this. Verifiability is also much stricter in BLPs in which instead of material that could be potentially challenged being allowed to be discussed, the policy for BLP specifically states "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". With identity theft being a thing, the addition of personal info to a BLP is put to a much higher standard than simply being able to be verified by a reliable source, and it states that if a subject compalins about their birthdate that one should err on the side of caution and simply just include the year as long as there's a reliable source for it. Failure to follow this policy can often lead to a much quicker block because of how serious it is.
A conflict of interest occurs when you have some sort of close connection to something in which you may not be able to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view guidelines. FOr example, I myself have a conflict of interest with the article Raising Cane's because I am currently an employee at one of their restaurants. This differs from undisclosed paid editing and paid editing in general. UPE is when you are being paid/compensated specifically for your contributions on Wikipedia and you do not disclose it in the required manner which will result in a block as doing so is a violation of the WMF Terms of Use (which, while most people don't read because who actually reads them
TL;DR Copyright is complicated because it involves the law, and the law is complicated. Ok on to my actual summary of the copyright policy. The copyright policy on Wikipedia is most likely the strictest policies on the platform because it involves things having to do with the law, and therefore failing to comply with this policy will quickly lead to a block. The specifics of what is and isn't copyrightable varies depending on the country (Commons covers this in more detail), however for me, where it is relevant, I will base it off the US Copyright Laws and I live in the US. The vast majority of Wikipedia's text is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (it is noted that 4.0 is incompatible) which means that you are allowed to reuse the content for anything as long as you provide attribution to it, and if you remix it in any way then you must release it under that same license. In terms of addition of things regarding copyright, if you add something that is copyrighted then it must either be in the public domain, or be released under a license compatible with Wikipedia. Failure to do so is a copyright violation in which the infringing content must be removed from the location it was added and then the revision deleted (hidden from public view) as a copyright violation. Anything you find on the internet is copyrighted and not usable on English Wikipedia (with some exceptions regarding Fair Use which I will get into) since everything is automatically copyrighted unless the copyright is explicitly stated otherwise. There is an exception to this, however. Normally, everything involving something having to do with the Wikimedia Foundation must make use of work that is free from copyright, however the licensing policy of the WMF lets individual projects (except for Wikimedia Commons which hosts most of the images used on enWiki) adopt an exemption doctrine policy which allows the use of non-free content. On enWiki this will usually be based on the US legal doctrine on fair use. Fair use was established as part of legal doctrine in the United States when Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976. What is defined as fair use is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 107 which states the following:
Wikipedia puts these into a fair use criteria which are defined in WP:NFCCP.
A hoax is when you make up something that if fake and the get people to try and believe it is true. Hoaxes damage Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia since they trick the reader into believing deliberately false information which can lead to general misinformation. Sometimes it is done simply just to test how good we are at detecting and removing them (which you shouldn't do anyway and will lead you to get blocked). Deliberately creating hoax articles is considered vandalism, and obvious hoaxes will be deleted under G3 of the speedy deletion criteria. Some of the oldest hoaxes are listed at WP:HOAXLIST, however creating a hoax with the intent of getting it added to the list will lead to a block (notice a pattern?).
An attack page is any page that has the sole purpose of either threatening or depreciating/insulting the subject. While covering the bad things about a subject isn't completely disallowed, if an article only consists of that then it is considered an attack page. Biographical articles that are unsourced and entirely negative are also considered attack pages. When you delete an attack page, you should also blank it as a courtesy (see WP:CBLANK) as well as tag it with the CSD template for criteria G10.
Communications (Pt. 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related. Also see Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Disputes and consensus.
In general, discussing things with the creators of new pages is important to the NPP and even the AFC process as it can prevent confusion as to why things were done. For example, if a page was nominated for deletion because there isn't an indication of notability (A7/A9 I have no clue why those are separate criteria when they are essentially the same except for different topics) and there was no discussion, the creator may be confused as to why their article is being deleted because they might not understand what notability means. If the nominator discusses it with the creator then they may be able to reach an understanding as to why the deletion is happening.
Warning templates are one of the main tools of those involved in anti-vandalism efforts. Their purpose is to inform the user that there are issues with their contributions which usually have been reverted, and if they continue it may result in a block. Usually admins will look for 4 warnings given to a user before blocking them, though this is not a strict requirement and has exceptions. Additionally, some warning templates only have 1 level (usually either a level 1 or level 4 warning, depending on which one it is) to them as they are only intended to be given once. There are also some warning templates that have variations more suited for being given to newer users. Most anti-vandalism tools will allow the user to place a warning on someone's talk page, however if they misuse the warning templates they can be blocked.
Deletion (Pt. 4)Articles for deletion is the place you send an article you hate to get deleted! ...Wait it's not!?[Joke] In all seriousness, Articles for Deletion is a place you send an article to be discussed by the community on whether or not it should be deleted. There are many reasons why you would do this, but they usually have something to do with the articles notability. If you believe an article isn't notable and have put in the effort to look for sources then you should send it to AFD following the instructions on the page to nominate it (or just use Twinkle which can do it automatically as long as you fill everything in). Once you've nominated it people will discuss it and most of the time it will be closed after 7 days according to the consensus. However it won't always be closed after 7 days, it can be closed earlier or well after. It can be closed earlier if the article has a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted, which can be seen when a majority of users (who make policy based arguments) say the article should be kept. Another time it could be closed earlier would be if the nomination is malformed or of an invalid rationale, in which case it will be speedily kept (speedily keep? speedy kept?). There are other rationale as to why an AFD will be closed early with the rationale of speedy keep which are listed at WP:CSK. Yet another reason why a deletion discussion would be closed early would be if the article is suitable for deletion under one of the speedy deletion criteria. In this case the article will be nominated under the speedy deletion criteria (as long as it's valid) and deleted with the deletion discussion closed as "Speedy deleted under X#" with "X#" being the CSD it fit under. However, sometimes a deletion discussion may need to be extended past the 7 day mark which is called relisting. This can happen if either the consensus isn't clear (either an even amount of policy based !votes or different alternatives for deletion have been proposed) or there have been very little or no comments on the discussion (very little is usually only relisted if the article isn't able to be soft deleted because it was already PRODed). Usually a discussion should only be relisted twice (per what's described in WP:RELIST), and if it needs to be relisted more than that then the relisting user should give a reason in the relisting comment.
Proposed deletion and proposed deletion of BLPs are similar processes that bypass the need for a full deletion discussion. Despite being named similarly the context in which they would be added to an article are very different. For PROD, you should first perform a WP:BEFORE search similar to an AFD, then you can place the PROD template on the article you are proposing be deleted as long as it hasn't already been nominated for PROD before and that it hasn't already been discussed at AFD (regardless of the outcome of the AFD). If it fits both of these then the PROD template can be placed on the page and then after 7 days the article can be deleted. However if the PROD template is removed at all, regardless of reason, then the PROD is considered contested and has to go through the normal AFD process (Unless the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion
Soft deletion is a process in which an article is deleted after a deletion discussion has received minimal participation. In this case the deletion discussion is treated as an expired PROD and may be undeleted by request similar to PROD. This might not be nearly as accurate as the others as I rarely encounter cases in which a soft-redirect to a sister project is appropriate so even with reading the link I don't fully understand it. A soft redirect is a type of redirect in which it does not divert you to the page it redirect to but instead keeps you on the redirect page with a link to the page it redirects to. On Wikipedia this is usually used to redirect the user to a relevant page on a sister project because the article itself may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia but it might be more appropriate for one of Wikipedia's sister projects (i.e. Wiktionary or Wikiquote). They are usually only created if the word or phrase is commonly wikified (I'm not entirely sure what this means in this context since the link doesn't exactly make it clear) or has been repeatedly been recreated. The benefits of soft-redirect are that it brings the sister projects closer together and minimizes further issues involving cleanup.
Speedy deletion is a form of deletion in which the normal deletion process is completely bypassed and the article is deleted without any prior discussion. An article is only eligible for speedy deletion if it and its history falls under one of the 38 criteria (I think I counted that right?). These 38 criteria are divided into 6 categories based on the namespace they are in (with the exception of the General criteria which applies to all namespaces). Most of the criteria are based on the fact that the content is wholly unsuitable for an enyclopedia (despite this WP:NOT is not a valid criteria which I will go into a little later) and are almost guaranteed to not survive a deletion discussion. These can range from being complete nonsense, being created by a user evading their block/ban, to being deleted by the WMF as an office action (criteria G9, although I have never seen this used and don't think it should be valid for various reasons). When looking at some of the criteria, some of them seem to jump in what number they are. The reason for this is that some of the criteria have since been repealed or rendered obsolete, meaning they are no longer needed or no longer have any use. (rant starts here) Despite this, I believe that CSD has some flaws in what is considered eligible for deletion. First, I don't understand why WP:NOT, is an invalid reason for speedy deletion. It's an established policy, and if something violates WP:NOT it has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a deletion discussion. Just recently, I encountered (and rejected) a draft article called Draft:Lord Breadbear which is a fictitious story for a cult. I nominated for G3 initially which was declined since it was not attempting to pass as something that is real, and that being fictioious doesn't qualify for G3. In this case if WP:NOT were a valid deletion criteria then it could've been deleted per WP:1DAY, WP:NOTWEBHOST, or WP:FORUM. However because these aren't valid speedy deletion criteria, despite them being completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia, the draft has to go through the MFD process (not linking here to avoid canvassing). Another issue is the fact that G9 exists. G9 essentially means that if the WMF decides they don't want an article to be on Wikipedia then they can delete it without any further explanation as it is an "office action". While the office action's page's nutshell states "are taken to prevent legal trouble or personal harm" this is never made clear since all they have to say is "This was an office action" and no one questions it. To me I feel this gives the WMF too much power and allows them to bypass the community simply because they can essentially shut down the Wiki if they want to. My hate towards this may simply be due to the feeling that the WMF tends to act on their own accord without needing much explanation.(rant ends here)
Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)Tagging pages is a great way to get other editors to try and improve a page if you are unable to yourself. It can be used to highlight specific problems with the article such as not having enough citations or being written like an advertisement. They can be used in conjunction with each other to describe some of the problems in the article. However just because a tag may apply to an article doesn't mean it should be. Add a bunch of tags in the article for every single issue can be seen as tag bombing and overtagging which tends to be more disruptive than helpful. Instead you should tag the most important things first, and leave the others untagged. For example, if an article on a company has 1 source, is linked to from no where else, is an advertisement, and doesn't have a lead section, rather than adding a maintenance tag for all of these, instead you should add a tag for the single source and it being written like an advertisement as those are the most important things to be tagged. Twinkle is a great tool that makes it easy to add most of the maintenance tags you would ever need to put on the article.
Fair warning: No matter how many times I read this page I still find categorization confusing (probably why I usually don't categorize articles unless I know what categories belong on it) Categories are a way of connecting different pages to other related ones through their defining characteristics. Usually if a category is in a subcategory of another category then it shouldn't be placed into the parent category. The categories that should be added are based on the defining characteristics of the article, usually something most reliable sources talk about. The image File:Category-diagram.png does a good job at showing how complicated and confusing categorization is. Uh.. other than this I'm not really able to say much more since I still don't understand categories no matter how much I read them. They're probably the most complicated and confusing thing about Wikipedia and often should just be left to more experienced users who know what they're doing.
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. Blythe Baird For this article, I first looked at the sourcing (I will do this for all of the following articles). I already saw that it had maintenance tags on it so that wasn't something I could do. So after everything looked fine I added the relevant WikiProjects and moved on.
I took a look at the sourcing and then when I went back to the top, I noticed it was created by someone named "GarrettPlaysGuitar" which to me seems like the subject of the article, so I tagged it with the autobiography tag. I'm not entirely sure if this article should've been accepted. The reviewer is blocked as a sock and said it was borderline accept.
3. Shiishongna I looked at the sourcing and while at first it seemed fine, when I checked out the sources, they all seemed to fail WP:SIGCOV as most of them were just passing mentions of the tribe. So I draftified it and told the user that the main issue was SIGCOV.
I wasn't sure on this one after I saw the sources were only reviews. So I asked on the Wikipedia Discord server if reviews are enough to establish notability for a film. I was told they are so I'm leaving it as is since there's not much more I can do with it.
5. 2023 Bowdoin–Yarmouth shootings I didn't look much further than the sourcing on this article since shootings tend to be extremely controversial and heavy subjects that I don't wish to get into arguments about.
6. Sebastien Summerfield
This article needs some serious work.. more than I'm willing to put in given my knowledge on
7. Joe H. Tonahill This article seems fairly interesting. I feel the citations in the lead could probably be moved to somewhere in the body, however I don't know enough lawyer things. I added the WikiProject tags to the talk page and removed a source that didn't really do much for it. I checked the other sources to make sure they were good and they all seem fine other than the obituary which could be replaced with a better source, however for the purpose of the article and what is sourcing its fine.
9. Nancy Utley This article seems to use certain sources a lot, however I don't believe there's any specific issue with that so I can't really do much about that. I added Category:American film producers so it isn't uncategorized. I'm not entirely sure if the image is under the appropriate license as using TinEye, I'm able to see it pops up on a few different websites, however "filmindependent" goes to a 404 page, it doesn't appear on deadline, and it appears on Hollywood reporter but in a slideshow of different images so I'm not sure if that means they own the image or what. Otherwise it seems...mostly fine. She was the president of Searchlight Pictures but I"m not sure if that in itself means she's notable. The image is due to be deleted today as its been 7 days since its been uploaded (April 24) so I guess that's not too big of a concern. I just noticed that this article was created by a student editor. I'm actually fairly impressed by their work. It might need to be edited a little bit since student editors aren't nearly as good with these things as normal editors, but it's better than other student editor works I've seen. Taking a closer look at the article, her birth date and name were unsourced (her birth name was sourced to a weebly website) and the first paragraph of the early life section had a completely unreliable source so I just removed all of these things. If it were an official school website I would've given it a pass but it isn't so I got rid of it.
DiscussionEvaluationOnce 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! You passed the course, and my evaluation follows below: Blaze Wolf completed this NPP Tutorial and has demonstrated that he has a good understanding of Notability, and associated PAGs. I would like to see him focus a little more on MOS and tagging articles with one sentence leads, but that will come with practice and experience. He also demonstrated a good sense of responsibility by not reviewing a topic he knows little about, or was not comfortable reviewing. I recommend a trial period with the NPP rights so he can gain more hands-on experience as a reviewer. Atsme 💬 📧 02:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC) Tips & scripts
NPP Forums
UserboxThis userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.
|
.svg){kind=spacer}
User:Illusion Flame
| Passed June 8, 2023
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
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.
Instructions: Illusion Flame, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:
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 💬 📧 01:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Notability (Pt. 1)
If we get through all that and the article passes, I would review it. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)
Communications (Pt. 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related. Also see Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Disputes and consensus.
Deletion (Pt. 4)
Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)
NPP ExerciseBefore 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. 746 BC
4. Lourdes Leon
DiscussionEvaluationOnce 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. 'Final review: Illusion Flame CONGRATULATIONS on passing this course. You are now eligible to receive the NPP Reviewer rights. You worked well throughout this tutorial, and know what is expected of a good reviewer. I don't think you need a trial period because you adequately demonstrated responsibility and caution, as well as good ole' common sense – the perfect combination. Happy reviewing!! Atsme 💬 📧 17:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Tips & scripts
NPP Forums
UserboxThis userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.
|
