User:Cassiopeia/NPPSchool/Less Unless

Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your NPP School page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working).

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

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

Notability

PART 1

When patrolling or reviewing an article, you may often come across articles do not meet the WP:N guidelines, but the editors make the edits in good faith. Please read WP:AGF and do not WP:BITE the new editors.

A. Notability is a test guidelines to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article in Wikipedia mainspace. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, General Notability Guidelines, Specific Notability Guidelines, Stand-alone list before completing the following tasks.

General notability guidelines

1. In your own words, why it is important to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE new editors.

Answer: Assuming good faith is crucial as the majority of people engaging in Wikipedia act with an aim to enhance it otherwise it wouldn't work. Mistakes and Wikipedia policy breaches appear not because people intend to do harm, but due to their lack of knowledge on what's appropriate or not in the community standards, which were elaborated over time. In all situations it's for the best to behave in a civilized manner, not give rise to or support fights. As Wikipedia encouraged editors to be bold, "biting" is logically excluded. It's obvious that anybody in the new field makes mistakes, and Wikipedia is no exception. Therefore it's important to avoid attacks on new editors which may result in unpleasant situations such as fights or their leave and subsequent loss to the community (this could have been a great editor). To resolve any arising issue there is a set of instruments such as dispute resolutions, consensus, talk pages for discussion and so on. --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

2. In your own words, how does notability is defined in Wikipedia?

Answer: Something is notable if it has been mentioned in a third-party independent reliable sources hence is a verifiable fact. It doesn't matter if the subject is popular or not, as long as it meets the requirement above and is not an original research. --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. In Wikipedia, notability means "worthy to be noted" - it is defined as a topic is "presumably" notable for stand-alone article or list if (1) it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject whee by the sources talk "directly" about the subject in depth and in length and not only passing mentioned and (2) it is not excluded under the What WP:Wikipedia is not policy. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

3. Does a step by step instructions on how to "Change a car tire" considered a notable topic in Wikipedia?

Answer: No, per WP:NOTMANUAL. Wikipedia allows descriptions of things but not imperative instructions on how to use them. --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. Right as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how to manual site. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

4. What are the differences between A WP:GNG and a specific notability guidelines? how do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?

Answer: GNG are used for all the articles posted on WIkipedia regardless of the topic. Specific guidelines offer a more in-depth criteria for different topics. When patrolling an article we should first check if it complies with GNG, if it fails, it's important to check SNG which may save the article from deletion. --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. Both can be used when patrolling but those subject falls under SNG/SSG (sport specific guidelines) but fails to meet the WP:GNG guidelines would sometimes nominated for deleteion WP:AfD for discussion to determine the status of the article. (We will cover AfD in later assignment).

Specific notability guidelines

5. If an editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2019 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why?

Answer: The subject is considered notable as 1. it had widespread effect as an international event, 2. it has already been written about in independent sources. 3. it's in relatively near future with set place and dates (Summer Olympics 2040 would not pass for instance). --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Very well. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

B. Without considered of sources/content policies and review just based on "subject specific notability" (SSN) "alone" for sake of the exercises below, please answer if the subject meets the SSN guidelines, based on the given content below, and specify which notability criteria they meet or fail.

6. A New York city based 2019 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.

Answer: the subject fails to meet the SSN guidelines based on the information given. It doesn't have any products yet, no mentions in independent reliable secondary ==+sources, it's new and even the investment doesn't make it notable until there is some noteworthy outcome. Alternatively it can be added to a related article. Criteria WP:NOTADVERTISING --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. For a "2019 start up" which means the company not even one year old and with only 200K capital, it would only enough for official renovation but not a business fund as such it usually fails WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

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

Answer: the subject meets the SSN guidelines under WP:ANYBIO criterion 2, and WP:SPORTSPERSON - as they hold a record in a specific field. --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

N. The SSN is WP:MMABIO. He has currently has fought two fights under top tier promotion (UFC) and still need one more fight to meet WP:MMABIO requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

8. A upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, was reported will be in production in December 2019 and to be released on August 2020 in the cinemas.

Answer: Fails WP:NFF - however it can be included into a related article if it has any coverage. --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. You need to provide reason why it fail WP:NFF - it is because the production might not be started yet as has not state the actual date in December. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

9. A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2019 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy.

Answer: Fails WP:POLITICIAN - just running for a position is not enough. --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. To pass WP:NPOL, once needs to be officially elected to state/national position. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Fails to meet the guidelines, as he is self -produced, not signed with any major label, uses public platform to display his work, hasn't been in any charts, etc - WP:SINGER - fails all criterion. --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. Right. Subject fails WP:SINGER SSN notability guideline. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

10.a Australians volleyball players, Christopher McHugh and Damien Schumann, won the gold medal in Beach Volleyball at the 2018 Commonwealth Games was held on the Gold Coast, Australia from April 6 to 12.

Answer:

I think both players are notable under WP:SPORTSPERSON as 1) they both participated in major sports events (not only the 2018 Commonwealth Games, but also world championships (found information here ), 2) won gold medals (as stated) and 3) received coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (here and here, for example). However I'm back and forth here. Not 100% sure. Less Unless (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. Good work. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

10.b "Sandy" is a song from the 1978 film Grease, written by Louis St. Louis and Screamin' Scott Simon (of Sha Na Na), and performed by John Travolta, in character as Danny Zuko. It was released as a single in several countries, giving Travolta a no. 2 hit in the UK.

Answer:

The song meets the guidelines WP:NSONG as 1) it ranked on a national music chart 2) it has been independently released as a single and also under WP:NALBUM as it was performed in a notable movie. Less Unless (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Right. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

10.c Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower was an American army general and statesman who served as the 34th president of the United States from 1953 to 1961.

Answer: Meets the guidelines WP:BASIC, also WP:ANYBIO - all 3 criteria, WP:POLITICIAN - held national office. And WP:MILPEOPLE - criteria 1,2,3,4,5. Less Unless (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Very good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

C. Based on which SSN guidelines the below subjects are notable.

11. Carlos Alós-Ferrer

Answer: WP:NACADEMIC - criteria 1, 5, 8 --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Being a professor does not meet WP:NPROF criteria 5. However the subject meets criteria 1 for WP:NPROF #1 [1] for being highly cited and #8 as the chief editor of Journal of Economic Psychology [2]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

12. Alistair Overeem

Answer: WP:NKICK - criterion 1, 2; WP:NMMA - criterion 1, 2.--Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Very good. Meets both WP:NMMA and WP:NKICK for criteria 1 & 2. He is also one of only two fighters to hold world titles in both MMA and K-1 kickboxing at the same time. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

13. Jennifer Lopez

Answer: multiple - WP:ENTERTAINER - 1,2,3; WP:SINGER - almost all criteria.--Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. She also passes WP:NACTOR as she has featured in major roles in many movies. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

14. Three Mile Island accident

Answer: WP:EVENTCRIT - 1, 2; WP:EFFECT --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. And WP:GEOSCOPE his accident gave rise to a significant of anti-nuclear protest. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

15. Persepolis

Answer: WP: GEOFEAT - 1 --Less Unless (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Y.Populated as a historical city of its civilizations. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

16. Moscow theater hostage crisis

Answer: Meets under WP:LASTING - had long lasting consequences (such as i.e. Resolution adoption), WP:GEOSCOPE as had impact on international level, as well as resulted in many works (play, documentary) which leads us to WP:DEPTH and WP:DIVERSE as a big variety of reliable sources covered it. Also WP:NCRIME. Less Unless (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

17. Carthage

Answer: Meets under WP:GEOFEAT criterion 1 - officially assigned the status of cultural heritage due to it's historical significance. Less Unless (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

18. Omega Nebula

Answer: Meets under WP:NASTCRIT all criteria: 1 - visible to naked eye, 2 - listed in Messier catalogue, 3 - subject of multiple, non-trivial published works 4 - was discovered before 1850 (1745). Less Unless (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Right. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

19. The Notebook (novel)

Answer: Meets under WP:BKCRIT criteria 1 - has been on a best-seller list, 3 - the movies were based on it.Less Unless (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

20. Michael Ballack

Answer: Meets under WP:NFOOTBALL both criteria - played in numerous Tier 1 International Matches and played in fully professional leagues.Less Unless (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Y.13:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Hi, CASSIOPEIA^(talk)! I have finished.

Hi Less_Unless, See above and ping me when you are done with the questions and ready for review. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Less_Unless, See comment and next time pls ping me when you have done the assignment. Also please nest the Wikipedia link with double bracket and closes with double bracket - place WP:NOTMANUAL instead of WP:NOTMANUAL (pls view it in source edit mode. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, CASSIOPEIA^(talk). Thank you for your review. Now I have a better understanding of what kind of answers you expect from me and the spheres I lack knowledge in. I want to re-read the guidelines of those questions I failed to answer correctly, so if there's a chance you can give me more assignments on those topics - i would really appreciate. I am ready for the next assignment, but it will take more time as for the reasons stated above. Thank you for your help! --Less Unless (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Less_Unless, See additional question in Part B 10a to 10c and Part C Q16-Q20 as requested (pls explain the reasons of why the subject meet/fail the SSN as well). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Less_Unless, Well-done! Reviewed additional questions in Part B 10a to 10c and Part C Q16-Q20. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Sources

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for such content claimed should be supported by independent (secondary), reliable sources for verification. Please read WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:RSP, WP:V, WP:PROVEIT, WP:Primary, WP:Secondary, and WP:Tertiary and answered the the below questions in your own words.

You could contact WP:RX if you could not find the sources yourself either on web due to Paywall content or printed books.

---

1.

Topic	Explanation	5 Examples	Comment by Cass
Reliable source	Reliable sources are those that are published, are known for fact-checking and accuracy and are independent of the subject of the article. In reliability the context matters - the age of the source, it's author and publisher all influence the reliability.	(example)The Guardian newspaper The New York Times The Economist New Scientist (weekly UK science magazine) Aviation Week & Space Technology (weekly US aerospace industry magazine)	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
User generated sources	These are websites whose content is mainly created by users, for example personal websites, blogs, forums, social media. These types of sources are not considered acceptable.	Facebook Wordpress Any personal webpage Wikipedia Chrunchbase	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Non Independent source	Non independent source is the one that is in any way affiliated with the subject of an article. It has a clear conflict of interests. Such sources may be influenced in different ways (editorial policy, payments, personal contacts) so they are considered unacceptable.	Press releases Webpages created by the subject of an article, self published sources. Sponsored articles and videos. Any media affiliated with the subject of an article Original research	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

---

2.

Type	Explanation	Sources (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary)	Comment by Cass
Primary	Primary sources are original materials often written by people who are directly involved. They offer subjective views of events and are not considered independent.	Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Research Research & Reviews in Polymer Journal of Biomedical Sciences Global Journal of Digestive Diseases Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Allied Science Diary Memoirs Letters Autobiography Research paper (for scientist) A work of art Novel Film (by an author the article is about) Personal webpage Press release	Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Secondary	Secondary sources provide an author's analysis and concepts based on primary sources, usually at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources can be independent or not.	Wired The Verge Engadget The Financial Times The Hill	Y. Also such as newspapers, reviews, books of certain subjects and etc.15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Tertiary	Tertiary sources publish compilation of the information found in primary and secondary sources. These include encyclopedias and many undergraduate level textbooks.	Encyclopædia Britannica Scholarpedia World Book Encyclopedia Wikipedia Columbia Encyclopedia	Y Also almanacs, dictionaries and etc. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

---

3.

Subject	Primary	Secondary	Tertiary	Comment by Cass
Example: Art	Example:Sculpture	Example:Article critiquing the sculpture	Example:Encyclopedic article on the sculptor
History	Memoirs of the eyewitness	A book covering this event and mentioning the memoirs	Anthology of the works dedicated to this event	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Science	New invention	In depth analysis of the invention in a scientific article	Encyclopedic article on the inventor	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Athletes	World record	An article in a newspaper on the accomplishment	Textbook mention	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

---

4. Please explain in your own words why the content claimed needs to be verified?

Answer: All the content has to be verified as it's one of the key policies of Wikipedia. Any user should be able to find the information provided on Wikipedia in other reliable published sources. Wikipedia as a tertiary source only compiles the information. So there has to be an inline citation provided to a reliable independent source. Unverified information should be deleted.

It's important to verify the information as it's crucial no to spread the untruthful information that may cause misunderstanding and even harm. Less Unless (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. Content needs to verifiable so we may know where the info/source from for we could know if the source is independent and/or reliable, and not because it is the facts or true - see WP:But it's true!. If source indicated XXX is from Jamaica but the fact XXX is from Cuba, we put XXX is from Jamaica in article as per source. We will correct the info when the sources (not need to be the same source) correct itself. For example Alexander the Great - How he die is based on which sources you read, from poising, to malaria and typhoid fever to infectious (meningitis) to acute pancreatitis and etc. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

5.Could we used Wikipedia as the source? and why?

Answer: No, Wikipedia can't be considered as a source as it's a tertiary source that only compiles the information already published. It's written by many people with different backgrounds and interests which may affect the content. Moreover there are numerous articles that are in the process of creation and that haven't been reviewed yet which means there can be many mistakes and unverified information.Less Unless (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. Wikipedia can not be the sources as the content of Wikipedia is supported by "other sources" - See WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia is a online knowledge sharing platform. Readers should check the sources in the article and verify/read the info themselves. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: An autobiography of Benjamin Franklin in an article about him published by Oxford University Press is reliable (as the house is reputable and the author writes about himself), but not independent as the autobiography is a primary source, where the author describes first hand his life and work. Wikipedia needs secondary sources. Less Unless (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

7.Give an example and explain why a source is independent source but not reliable?

Answer: A user on Amazon offers a pen of Benjamin Franklin for sale accompanied with a story. It's independent as the user has no connection to Benjamin Franklin but not reliable as it's a user generated content not supported by any other sources.Less Unless (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Pls indicate "y" for yes or "n" for no or "?" after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n".

8.

David Petraeus

David Howell Petraeus AO (/pɪˈtreɪ.əs/; born November 7, 1952) is a retired United States Army general and public official. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011, until his resignation on November 9, 2012 after his affair with Paula Broadwell was reported.

Petraeus was born in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, the son of Sixtus Petraeus (1915–2008), a sea captain from Franeker, Netherlands.

In 2003, Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the fall of Baghdad

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch	The source is well-known news agency	The source is known for fact checking and strict editorial policies	It's not long and in-depth, but it's all about the subject. (I'm not completely sure here)	✔ Yes
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893	Has no connection to the subject of the article	There's no consensus within the community on its reliability, it is edited from a left wing political perspective	the article reveals a lot of facts	✘ No
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012	Has no direct connection to the subject of the article	it's user generated content	there is no information about the subject, just of his ancestor	✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005	it's a well-known magazine	it's considered reliable by the wikipedia community	tells a lot about the object	✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html	we don't know if the source is independent as it's a big platform with even press-releases and a lot of user generated content	again, we don't know if the information presented wasn't in any way biased and it's more a primary source, its better to look for secondary	big interview on the subjects life	✘ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html	major newspaper	known for fact checking and considered reliable by the wikipedia community	in-depth information	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

9. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: The subject meets the SSN per WP:MILPEOPLE- 2,3,5 WP:POLITICIAN -1. Less Unless (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Y (1) PBS is generally considered a reliable source. 2. Huffpost - Although HuffPost contributors is considered not reliable in WP:RSP but if we look closely, the piece is written by By ANNE FLAHERTY, KIMBERLY DOZIER AND ADAM GOLDMAN, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. The Associated press is considered reliable source as they sell their news to other news agencies. However, the content is based on many individual opinions, for such I would talk it as not reliable sources. (3) Being a CIA director and a United States Army general in is not really a politician per say, but he passes Military history/Notability guide#2 as a U.S Army general as per the content above.(note a person who serves in the military is not a politician and visa versa unless they have held both positions in the said fields above such as Leonidas I, Julius Caesar, Ulysses S. Grant, Napoleon Bonaparte or Dwight D. Eisenhower then they would pass both WP:NPOL and WP:MILNG). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

---

10.

Jordan Lennon (born February 22, 2000), is a British film producer and actor. Lennon is currently a member of BAFTA. He continues to work aside 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros, Wicked Wales, Capture Studios, Cineworld, Paramount Pictures, and Rockefeller Foundation.

At age 16, the Vice President of 20th Century Fox, Paul Higginson. Who previously worked on Star Wars, Titanic, and Independence Day took on Jordan and Rowan Snow as a mentor. In December 2018, Jordan and Rowan finished British Film Academy. Jordan lived in Skelmersdale for 10 years before moving to Rhyl, North Wales. He's currently writing 'Stranger in the Night' scrreenplay for Warner Brothers.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8902348/	IMDB is user generated hence can't be considered independent.	Reliable as the subject states about himself (not sure here)	Yes, the information is about the subject, however there's not much.	✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales	It is independent as it's a reputable institution. However the link doesn't even lead to the actors page – it's just the main page. I've searched on the page – there are no mentions of him.	Generally it's reliable, but not in this context as there are no mentions of the subject.	No information at all.	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125	No, as it's the subject's personal page.	Reliable as the subject states about himself (not sure here)	No, (no access) but if I had an access, it would be a yes as there's information on his life.	✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/	there's no connection to the subject.	as the webpage is mainly user-generated (the users can request an actor or any other information to be added to the webpage. There's no evidence of fact checking and (as the site states in FAQ – mistakes are possible).	the page is devoted to the subject, however just 2 voice roles listed.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

11. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: The subject fails Notability criteria WP:BASIC as he has not received any coverage in independent reliable media. As the subject fails the basic notability criteria, he also most likely fails the specific which is the case. He fails WP:ANYBIO – all 3 critera, WP:FILMMAKER – all 4 criteria.Less Unless (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. See below of the sources categories. Note if a source is written/come from by the subject or associates of the subject then it is not independent nor reliable. Examples: sources from the club of a soccer player, interviews from the subject marketing teams/advertising teams, Facebook, Instagram, their twitter page and etc. As for the notability, the subject fails ]WP:GNG WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8902348/	IMDB is user generated hence can't be considered independent.	The content is user generated.	oesn't discuss the subject much.	✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales	It is the cite of the org for the award.	Generally it's reliable	No information at all.	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125	No, as it's the subject's personal page.	Not reliable as the subject states about himself as he could say anything about himself.	? No, (no access)	✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/	there's no connection to the subject.	as the webpage is mainly user-generated (the users can request an actor or any other information to be added to the webpage. There's no evidence of fact checking and (as the site states in FAQ – mistakes are possible).	the page is devoted to the subject, however just 2 voice roles listed.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

---

12.

Martina Hingis is a Swiss former professional tennis player. She won five Grand Slam singles titles. Hingis was one of the highest-paid female athletes in 2000. She retired in November 2007 after being hampered by a hip injury for several months and testing positive for a metabolite of cocaine during that year's Wimbledon Championships, which led to a two-year suspension from the sport.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.instagram.com/martinahingis80/	It's the subject's personal page on social media.	It's subject's personal page.	Just photos and videos from events. Collection of information would need analysis, which Wikipedia editors are not supposed to do.	✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-us-open-hingis-20170910-story.html	it's a well known newspaper.	it's considered reliable by the Wikipedia community for the quality of content and fact checking.	the article covers the whole career of the subject.	✔ Yes
	it's a book by an independent author published in a well-known publishing house	the publishing house has a long history and is reputable.	just 1 sentence, but it can be used to support the fact stated.	✘ No
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/21171438/tennis-another-twist-bizarre-career-martina-hingis	A big sports media	i think it checks facts)	the whole article is dedicated to the subject.	✔ Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/nov/01/tennis	it's a reputable newspaper	the newspaper is known for its editorial policies and fact checking.	the whole article is dedicated to the subject.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

13. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: The subject meets the criteria: WP:SPORTSPERSON – as she participated and won multiple times in major professional competitions.Less Unless (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Instagram is not independent nor reliable source. Subject pass WP:NTENNIS SSN (sport specific notability) - Full content from the article Martina Hingis would pass all the WP:NTENNIS criteria. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

---

14.

Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania (1937)

Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 – April 9, 1959) was an American architect, interior designer, writer, and educator. Wright believed in designing structures that were in harmony with humanity and its environment, a philosophy he called organic architecture. His creative period spanned more than 70 years. He works includes The Guggenheim, swirling, snail-shaped museum in the middle of Manhattan. Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture." This is one of Wright's most famous private residences (completed 1937), was built for Mr. and Mrs. Edgar J. Kaufmann, Sr., at Mill Run, Pennsylvania. Constructed over a 30-foot waterfall, it was designed according to Wright's desire to place the occupants close to the natural surroundings. The house was intended to be more of a family getaway, rather than a live-in home.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://nypost.com/2017/06/07/frank-lloyd-wright-was-a-house-builder-and-homewrecker/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://franklloydwright.org/work/	it's the Foundation established by the subject.	it's third people talking about the subject (not sure)	the information is fully dedicated to the subject	✘ No
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm	it’s a reputable newspaper	it's well-known for fact checking	the whole article is dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	it’s a published book by an independent author in a reputable publishing house	the publishing house is well known and reputable	the book is dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

15. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: The subject meets the criteria: WP:BASIC, WP:ARCHITECT – criteria 1, 3 and 4, WP:ANYBIO – 1 and 2.Less Unless (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Y. Full content from the article of Frank Lloyd Wright, he would pass all the all (1-4) WP:ARCHITECT criteria. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

---

16.

Sonny Bill Williams 2010

Sonny William Williams (born 3 August 1985), who is a Muslim, is a New Zealand All blacks rugby union footballer, Williams was a Marist Saints junior when he was spotted playing in Auckland by Bulldogs talent scout John Ackland. In 2002 he was offered a contract and moved to Sydney (as the youngest player to ever sign with an NRL club) to play in the Bulldogs' junior grades.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7505117/2019-Rugby-World-Cup-Sonny-Bill-Williams-expecting-fourth-child.html	has no affiliation with the subject	considered unreliable by the community, editors are not encouraged to cite it	includes many different info on family and himself	✘ No
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108	the source is affiliated with the subject	as it's not independent, also written in a biased manner	a lot of facts about him and his career	✘ No
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308	it's a big newspaper	the source offers an interview, where subject is mentioned in a subjective statement	subjective statement, more of a trivial mention	✘ No
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html	it's a big newspaper	known for fact checking	mentions a lot of facts about the subject	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

17. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: The subject meet the WP:SPORTBASIC - participated in a major international professional competition at the highest level, also WP:NBOX criterion 1, WP:RLN criteria 1, 3. Less Unless (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Y. Sonny Bill Williams (full content), the subject would also meet WP:NRU criteria 1, 2. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

---

18.

Bryan Adams Guadalajara 2006

"Can't Stop This Thing We Started" is a song by Canadian singer and songwriter Bryan Adams. The song was written by Adams and Robert John "Mutt" Lange, and was the second single from Adams' 1991 album Waking Up the Neighbours where by the song was nominated for Grammy Award 1992 "Song of the Year"

Weekly charts

Chart (1991-1992)	Peak position
US Mainstream Rock (Billboard)	2
Denmark (IFPI)	2
US Billboard Hot 100	2

| class="col-break col-break-2" |

End-of-year charts

End-of-year chart (1991)	Position
Canada Top Singles (RPM)	3

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
	it's a reputable newspaper	known for fact checking	it's just a mention, but it can be used to support the fact of nomination.	✔ Yes
	it's a well known music magazine	they form the charts mentioned in the article	just a list of songs and their chart places, but can be used to support those statements	✔ Yes
	the link is dead but I suppose it's a music magazine	the information is about Danish chart in a Danish magazine	can't say as it's dead, but suppose it was just a mention that still could be used to support the statement, now it can't.	✘ No
	it's a well known music magazine	they form the charts mentioned in the article	just a list of songs and their chart places, but can be used to support those statements	✔ Yes
	it was a well-known music magazine	they form the charts mentioned in the article	it's just a mention, but it can be used to support the fact landing on the chart	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

19. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: The subject meets WP:NSONG criterion 1 - has been on charts.Less Unless (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

---

20.

Kamlesh Bhatt is a Solution Architect and a DevOps Engineer living in Singapore. I am a fan of technology, music, and entrepreneurship. He is interested in photography and travel. He could be reached at his blog and youtube channel.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://medium.com/@kamleshbhatt_	subject's personal account, user generated	personal account	random short facts	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kamlesh-bhatt-45392961/	personal account, user generated	personal page	there's some info available	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

21. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: Fails to meet WP:GNG, and specific such as WP:ANYBIO. Less Unless (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Y. good CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Less Unless Good day. See Assignment 2 above. Please ping me when you have finished with the assignment and ready for a review. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, CASSIOPEIA^(talk). I have finished the assignments, however I have two questions, where I had most doubts. 1. Is primary source (such as personal profile in social media) considered reliable? I've read that it is, but I don't know, somehow I have doubts. The person can write anything about themselves... 2) Significant coverage - somehow I can't see the clear difference between trivial mentions and short mentions, which can be considered significant. Like in Martina Hingis book mention - she is mentioned as one of the high-paid players. Is it trivial or not? I would be grateful for your answers. Best, Less Unless (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Less Unless. (1) A primary source especially those from their home page/official website, interview, Facebook, Instragram, Twitter, Blogs, LinkedIn they are considered not reliable and not independent for the info we get is from the subject themselves or their associates (marketing/advertising team, club, friends and etc). (2) Significant coverage means the sources talk about the subject in details and in dept and not only passing mentioned. Do note for a article to be accepted in Wikipedia mainspace for good (we will talk above deletion of articles in the later assignments), the article need to be notable and supported by multiple (at least 5 to 7+) independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in depth and in length and not passing mentioned. However, once that is achieved some other primary can be used sparingly as supplement for some minor/claim info of the subject where by the sources do not talk about other subject.

Need 10 more answers for Q 2 (Primary sources) and let me know if you have further questions. Kindly see notes below. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA^(talk), I have added additional 10 examples, sorry, I wasn't attentive. I don't feel confident about the sources yet, so I would be grateful for some additional assignments if possible (like the previous time, I learn well from mistakes). And, again, like the last time, you can give me the next assignment which I will start after the additional questions on this section. Thank you, Less Unless (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Less Unless Good work on Q 2 - reviewed. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

PS: Can you please take a look at assignments 19 and 20 - both have refs from the previous assignment set - 19 has no new refs, 20 does, but the list that follows is wrong. Thank you. Less Unless (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless I moved your question to the same assignment communication section here, so it would be easy to refer them. I below you meant Assignment 2 Q19 and Q20 instead of assignments 19 and 20. There are refs for both questions and I am not sure what you meant. Could you pls elaborate pls? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, Hm, it's weird, maybe it was some king of bug. Now everything looks correct. Sorry for bothering. Less Unless (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, it happened again - when you edit in visual editor - all the references in the reflist are the ones from the CIA guy from the assignment before. It's not a big deal, I can still see the proper ones, but it's just weird, I don't understand why it's happening. I can provide you with the printscreens. Moreover it happens to all the further assignment from module 3. Can you please take a look. Thank you. Less Unless (talk)

Less Unless I also use visual editor and I dont have the problem. I can see all the refs as they are. Visual editor do have some trouble from time to time, I used certain function of visual editor and it froze and I restated my lap top and the same thing happened again and again. So i think it is the software issues, which I know the software team is working on fixing some of the bugs in visual editor. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, Got it, good to know,thank you. Also finished the additional assignments on module 2. please take a look. Working on the next now. Less Unless (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless I will look at your assignment in Assignment in next few days as I will be travelling tmr, a long flight. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless Reviewed additional questions/answers. well-done. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Notes:

1. Reliable source - is a third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, reliable editorial judgment where by all majority and significant minority views are present and pursuant to the verifiability policy.

2. You Tube - We usually will take digital/press source. For video especially from You tube - We need to know where the info/content of the source is derive from. For example: the info from CNN of the CNN You tube content is considered reliable; however, A podcast of boxing channel from someone on Utube would considered not reliable.

3. Reftag - If the source is from a book (Google book) - example - https://books.google.com.my/books?id=ulDBAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Snowden&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDqp2VpMPlAhWE6XMBHcMsC08Q6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=Snowden&f=false. We could past the URL into "Reftag" (citation tool for Google book) and it will tidy up the ref and it will provide this (see in source mode and the talk-reflist below.

4.Lend a hand - If the subject is notable but only provide a source either is independent or not and you know where to locate multiple independent, reliable sources, then please lend a hand to search for the sources and place them in the article and mark review.

5. WP:RX - Resource to provide articles/sources content due to Paywall content or printed books.

References

---

Content Policy

Article titles

Please read WP:TITLE and answer the questions below

1. Article name "Hannibal Barca" - Does the article name need to be change? and Why? (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general and statesman who is widely considered one of the greatest military commanders in history. His father, Hamilcar Barca, was a leading Carthaginian commander during the First Punic War (264–241 BC).

References

Answer: The article name has to be changed to Hannibal per WP:COMMONNAME - as Wikipedia prefers the names that are most commonly used. All the refs refer to the subject as simply Hannibal, therefore this name is preferable. It's most recognizable and natural. Additionally a redirect can be created from "Hannibal Barca". Less Unless (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Y. Very well, you tackled two points here - need to change the article name as per WP:COMMONNAME and a redirect. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

2. Article name "Magic Johnson". Does the article name need to be change? and Why?(please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is an American retired professional basketball player and former president of basketball operations of the Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He played point guard for the Lakers for 13 seasons.

References

Answer: The article name should not be changed as it fully complies with the WP:COMMONNAME - the subject is commonly known under this name, he is mentioned in multiple media under it.Less Unless (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Biographies of living persons

Please read WP:BLP and answer the questions below.

3. As per the texts below, pls explain the if the content is acceptable of inclusive and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Conor Anthony McGregor (born 14 July 1988) is an Irish professional mixed martial artist and boxer. His is a former Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) featherweight and lightweight champion.

On 15 August 2019, TMZ Sports published a video that appeared to show McGregor punching a man at The Marble Arch Pub in Dublin. The incident happened on 6 April and was originally reported by Irish media, although without the video that showed the attack. Irish police stated in April that they had opened an investigation. McGregor was charged with assault and first appeared in court on 11 October 2019.

In April 2019, McGregor is the father of Terri Murray's son, Clodagh. Murray bedded McGregor in 2017 at his hotel after the Aintree Grand National just four weeks bofore McGregor's girlfriend Dee Devlin gave birth to their son.

References

Answer: Per WP:BLP information on the assault can be included as multiple reliable sources have reported on that. Information on the child should be immediately removed as it is not backed by any sources. (WP:GOSSIP, WP:GRAPEVINE). In the biographies of living persons it's crucial to provide only information available in multiple independent reliable sources. Such information has to be neutral and should exclude original research. Less Unless (talk)12:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Y The last paragraph about Murray is unsourced and is contentious material. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

4. As per the texts below, pls explain the if the content is acceptable of inclusive and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Diana Nyad (née Sneed; born August 22, 1949) is an American author, journalist, motivational speaker, and long-distance swimmer who lives in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. and could be contacted at +0-202-456-6213. Nyad gained national attention in 1975 when she swam around Manhattan (28 mi or 45 km) and in 1979 when she swam from North Bimini, The Bahamas, to Juno Beach, Florida (102 mi (164 km)). In 2013, on her fifth attempt and at age 64, she became the first person confirmed to swim from Cuba to Florida without the aid of a shark cage, swimming from Havana to Key West (110 mi or 180 km).

References

Answer: Information about the address and the phone number should be removed as it violates WP:BLPPRIVACY. Information on the swim can be included as it is backed by multiple independent reliable sources. Less Unless (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Y Good. By the way, the address and tel belong to the White House. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Images copyright

Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. Please answer the questions below and (1) with explanation based on Wikipedia guidelines and (2) provide the guidelines/links in your answer.

5. Could this image-1 be uploaded into C:Main Page and use in Wikipedia? and Why.

Answer- Explanation: The image can be used as it is located on a US public domain which allows free use of images. There is a copyright holder name, who is a marine, so cite: "works of authorship prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are not eligible for copyright protection in the United States". There are people who are as for me in private place - but they are also U.S. Government employees, therefore there's no need in model release.Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Per WP:PDI. Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Y. public domain images can be uploaded to Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer- Explanation: The image can be used as it's located on a public domain that allows any usage. Less Unless (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Per WP:PDI Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Y. We also always need to check the "original site" (the original source) that the image is in PD (public domain). If we click on the flickr link provided on the right of the image it will take your to [3] where it was uploaded by the owner and stated public domain (PD) there. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer- Explanation: This image can be used as it was created and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by a user who waived all of their rights to the work. Less Unless (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Per WP:IUPC Less Unless (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Y. Again we need to check the original source as not all the images are free use claimed by the editor who uploaded the images that the images were taken by them and agree to released the right or the upload the photo is a PD. If we follow the link (source) from Wikimdeia here - Pixabay and it is stated "Free for commercial use" and also on Wikimedia it is verify by reviewer. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer- Explanation: This image can not be used as it violated copyrights. It's somebody's work of art, it is not on a public domain or provided by the author. This image can be use only if the copyright holder provides allowance. Less Unless (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Per WP:IUPC Less Unless (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Y. One way we could check it to download the image to our computer and use Tineye] where you might able to find some reverse images on the internet. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Neutral point of view

P;lease read WP:NPOV and MOS:PUFF. Point out the WP:NPOV words/pharses and rewrite the paragraph on Question 9& 10 from a neutral point of view.

9. She is a brilliant boxer with a rare and exceptional beauty. She turned Pro at the age of 19 after winning one amateur fight on December 14, 2013 where she destroyed her opponent in 20 seconds. Her talent and marketability made her a fighter to watch right out the gate and she fought under XXX promotion on her next fight on February 2014.

Answer: The words that need to be removed: brilliant, rare and exceptional beauty, destroyed, talent and marketability, to watch right out the gate.

She is a boxer. She started competing on professional level at the age of 19 after winning an amateur fight in 20 seconds on December 14, 2013. She fought her next fight on February 2014 under XXX promotion.

PS. If there were refs, it would help a better wording. :)Less Unless (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Y Good to know you have removed the adverbial word "only" (only in 20 seconds) and not stray the readers' emotions when reading the text. Better still, just put "she won the fight". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

10. He is a popular, acclaimed Bulgarian actor, who loves by all who have watched his films. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry since he was at the tender, innocent of the age of 14 and he has featured in 44 films.

Answer: The words that need to be removed: popular, acclaimed, loves by all who have watched his films, tender, innocent.

He is a Bulgarian actor, well-received by public.(ref needed) He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry from the age of 14. He has featured in 44 films. Less Unless (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Y We could just remove the text "well-received by public". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

11. Please read WP:DUE and in your own words, please explain why it is important to provide balance and due weight content in an article.

Answer: WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia. It requires that everything posted in the mainspace should fairly represent all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Therefore it's crucial to give due weight to the fact presented - this means it should be clear from the article which viewpoints are the majority and which the minority. This is achieved by placement of information, detailed/less detailed description and other means.Less Unless (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Y. Take Capital punishment article for example - it provides a balance and due weight content, representing all mainstream points of view in reliable sources. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

No original research

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

12. In your own words, why Wikipedia is not a platform to publish original research?

Answer: Wikipedia's inclusion policies require all the content to be previously published by numerous independent reliable sources. It doesn't allow any opinions or ideas. Original research is a subjective point of view, not reviewed or fact checked by reliable sources. Less Unless (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

13. In your own words, please provide one example with explanation when it is appropriate to insert an original research or an opinion in an article.

Answer: The only reason to insert an original research or opinion in the article is when they were mentioned in multiple secondary reliable sources - peer-reviewed journals, respected online publications, etc. Otherwise such information can't be included. Less Unless (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

N. We could use exact words from the source in the article when (1) it is a public domain sites (2) the author/site has released their copyright and anyone to use the content/image such as " agree to irrevocably agree to release content/image under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL or under the Creative Commons license. (3) a direct quote and provide the source. Example Constitution of the United States and in Robert Whittaker (fighter) page (see below direct quote). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

In an interview with GQ Australia, he stated:

I am immensely proud to be an Australian and to be a pioneer in the sport to, you know, lead, lead today's MMA scene against all these other countries, you know, it really, it really does light me up, to see that the Australian flag when I walk out, you know, to hear them called out that I'm Australian and I am very patriotic. I am really proud of my country and proud of where I am from.

References

14. See this video and write the content in the in an article.

Answer: Sh. Shady Alsuleiman said that wearing jeans is not allowed for both men and women according to Islamic beliefs. He named several requirements for clothing jeans don't fit in: loose fitting, non transparent, plain in color and covering the private parts. Less Unless (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Y Good. You have indicated the info is from Sh.Shady Alsuleiman instead just stated "wearing jeans is ......." Another way to do it is to use a direct quote (see below). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

“ Islam demands Islam commands us with our with regards of our clothing for both men and women, our clothing must be first of all baggy, so must be loose with a men or women. It must non see-through whether men or women. It must non colorful attractive that means when someone walks everyone's looking at them. ”

References

---

Verifiability

Please read WP:V and answer the questions below

15. If the subject has two sons and it is supported by three independent, reliable sources but in reality he has 3 sons. Could we change the content from "2" sons to "3 sons"? and why?

Answer: We can not change content as of WP:NOTTRUTH. All the information on Wikipedia must have been previously published by multiple independent reliable sources - that is a necessary condition. Only such information can be added. Wikipedia respects the truth, but includes only information from secondary reliable sources, not just because it is true. Such content can be changed after it is published. Less Unless (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Y very good. Wikipedia is all about verifiability from independent reliable sources. We correct the content when the source corrected itself (same source or other sources). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Less Unless See assignment 3 above.07:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Less Unless Hi, Happy new year and wonder are you back from your holiday/break yet as I have yet to see you work on the assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Hello, thank you and likewise - happy holidays. Sorry I disappeared - I was here editing and as well nominated couple of articles for deletion which was supported by other editors - thanks to the knowledge I gained from this course. I had to write my MA thesis so I couldn't really concentrate on learning anything new. However, starting Monday I will get back to the assignment. I take it serious, sorry I haven't informed you in advance. Less Unless (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless Thank you for informing and pls see my answer to you on your question in Assignment 2 message/communication section. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA , can you please explain what kind of example is expected from me in question 13. I don't quite understand. Thank you. Less Unless (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless Sorry, reworded. see Q 13. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I have finished the assignment. Please check when you have time. Less Unless (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless Well-done! See comments above and let me know when you are ready to move to next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thank you! I am ready for the next one. Less Unless (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion

PART 2

We have looked at the requirements needed for a page to meet notable, policy and type of sources to merit a page in Wikipedia in Part 1 (Assignment 1, 2 & 3). In assignment 4, we look at what type of articles need to be filtered out from our system when reviewing a page. There are many criteria of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Here we discuss (1) General criteria (G1-G14), (2) Article criteria (A1-A11) and R2.

Please do the following

1. Pls set up your CSD log by installing MYCSD so I could review your CSD nomination. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
2. Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in computer and and install Earwig Copyvio Detector script. (The "copyvio" will appear on the left panel under "Tools" section on every page in Wikipedia.
3. Install CV-revdel and after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

General criteria

1. Please (G1-G14) at General and answer the following questions in your own words.

No	Criterion	Application	Comment by Cass
1	G1	Applies to articles in the mainspace which contain incoherent text - without any meaning at all. If there is any meaning - it can't be applied.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
2	G2	Applies to the pages created in the mainspace for test-editing, but it doesn't apply to sandbox.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
3	G3	Applies to articles containing obvious misinformation and hoaxes and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. Doesn't apply to articles about hoaxes.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
4	G4	Applies to identical or identical enough copies, having any title, of a page deleted as a result of its most recent deletion discussion.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
5	G5	Applies to creations of blocked or banned users during the time of their block on the topic they were blocked for. Also any page created by sock-puppet of such user. Doesn't apply to templates or redirects that can be useful.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
6	G6	Technical deletions of unnecessary empty categories, redirects, orphaned templates, pages created by mistake.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
7	G7	Applied when an author requests a deletion. Blanking a page is considered a request.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
8	G8	Applies to pages that depend on the deleted ones. Talk pages, redirects to non existent pages, image pages with no images etc. Doesn't apply to pages useful for Wikipedia community.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
9	G9	Deletions requested by Wikimedia Foundation Office	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
10	G10	Pages that threaten or intimidate someone, those written in a negative tone. If there is no version in the history with a neutral tone, they should be deleted and not restored in such condition.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
11	G11	Applies to pages that are entirely promotional and would require a major rewriting to comply with the policies. Doesn't apply to articles written from NPOV.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
12	G12	Applies to paged that violate copyright. Deleting the entire page is the last resort - if the history is unsalvageable. It can be applied to a section of a page to save the copyrighted material.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
13	G13	Applies to any pages that have not been edited in six months. Doesn't apply to redirects.	N. Applies to any pages found in Draft space, userspace with AFC submission or User with no content except the article wizard placeholder text. (it applies to article for creation (AfC and not any pages). CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
14	G14	Applies to disambiguation pages which have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one page; regardless of title, disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Article and R2 criteria

1. Please (A1-G11) criteria at WP:CSD#List of criteria and answer the following questions in your own words.

No	Criterion	Application	Comment by Cass
1	A1	Applies to articles which subject is impossible to identify based on the context provided. Doesn't include translated material and non English coherent material.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
2	A2	Applies to articles written in other language that copy the content on other Wikimedia project.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
3	A3	Applies to articles that contain anything, but content (names of section, external links, chat, questions, etc). Doesn't apply to very short articles and those only with infobox.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
4	A4	Old criterion "Attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title" now a part of A3.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
5	A5	Applies to any article that has only a dictionary definition, a primary source that has already been transwikied. Also an article on any subject that has been discussed at articles for deletion and as result moved to another wiki.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
6	A6	Old criterion "Attack articles" now a part of G10	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
7	A7	Applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Doesn't apply to educational institutions, products, TV programmes, books, film and articles where significance is indicated but not sourced.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
8	A8	Old criterion "Blatant copyright infringement articles" now a part of G12	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
9	A9	Applies to articles about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where all the listed contributing recording artists have no articles and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). Doesn't apply to articles where significance is indicated but not sourced.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
10	A10	Applies to recently created articles that duplicate an existing English Wikipedia topic, and does not expand or improve information within any existing article(s). Doesn't apply to articles that contain mergeable material.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
11	A11	Applies to articles about invented subjects/editor's creations with no claims of significance. Doesn't apply to articles where significance is indicated but not sourced and hoaxes.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
12	R2	Applies to redirects from the main namespace to any other namespace except Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces.	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

3. Pls read WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD 11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i: Kannan Raajamanickam

Y. Pls provide hist diff next time as well as the article name. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [4] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Draft:Yung Dark

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [5] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: Oliver Kendal

Less Unless Pls provide hist diff. Cant find the article log info. Check if you put the correct article name CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff [6] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: Emmanuel 'Manny' Cohen

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [7] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer v: Selina Mosinski

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [8] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Pls read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and answer the questions below.

3. When do we nominated a page for WP:G12 and when do we WP:REVDEL the COPYVIO text?

Answer: We nominate a page for G12 when the content is unsalvageable due to multiple copyright violations. If there's a chance to delete the revisions which violate the copyright and save other content, we request REVDEL. Less Unless (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Y. Also we do a G12 when a big chunk of the content is in violation of copyvio. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

4. What constitute copyright infringement/violation.

Answer: Copyright violation is: text copied from the sources that are not public domain or without permission or copyright holder, close paraphrasing. For images - if the image fails to comply with one of the free licences listed by Wikipedia - it constitutes copyright violation.Less Unless (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Y good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

5. Why some of the texts found in an article are identical as per its sources and yet they are not considered copyright violation? Please provide three examples.

Answer i: The text can be copied if it's in public domain or site.Less Unless (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: If placed in a quote with a supporting reference. Less Unless (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: If permission to use it is granted by the copyright holder under a necessary Licence.Less Unless (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Y. When the text is under certain Creative Commons licenses. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

6. Why copyright violation needs to be stamped out from Wikipedia and who determined when a violation is lawfully taking place?

Answer: Violating copyright undermines the basic principle of Wikipedia which is free use of the content available on the platform. Therefore all the information should be under free licencing. As the Wikipedia is registered are in the US, all copyright violations are governed by United States copyright laws. However Wikipedia encourages editor to respect copyright laws of other countries.Less Unless (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Y. Copyright infringement violation entails legal implications. Wikipedia talk violation of copyvio "very seriously". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

7. Pls read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and provide 5 successful CSD 12 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. You can use Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool to check if an article is in violation of COPYVIO.

Answer i: Draft:Theodoros Terzopoulos

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [9] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Mete coban

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [10] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii:Omar Mohammed: (this page was deleted per G12 and the author recreated it without violations)

Y - see here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [11] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: Draft:Applications in Plant Sciences

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [12] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer v: Draft:POSSE:

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [13] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

8. Pls provide 5 successful CSD in any criteria except WP:G11, WP:G12 and WP:G13 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i: Roombaroomba s9 (G2)

Y. Deleted as per G7. See - here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [14] I have another G2 as a substitude - [Draft:Fredrik Thomassen] Diff - [15] All logs: [16] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Templat:Col 2 (G2)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [17] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace (A3)

Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [18] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: MIAMI DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE/HIALEAH CAMPUS (G2)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [19] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer v: Andrew Buckland (disambiguation) (G14)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [20] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

9. Pls read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT. Please explain when to a new page can nominated CSD R2 and what should be considered when doing such move?

Answer: A page can be nominated R2 if it's a redirect from the mainspace to to userspace or draftspace. Such a redirect may be automatically generated when we move an article which requires additional improvement to comply with Wikipedia standards. R2 can't be used for redirects to Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help and Portal namespaces. Less Unless (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Y. We move articles to the draftspace to allow articles to be developed especially potential but unsourced WP:BLP article. Use R2 sparingly as some admins do not like pages to be move to draft page even WP:NPPDRAFT states the move is a safe place for editor to adding necessary sources, they would deems the if the articles are not improved or edit in 6 months, it will be G13. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

10. Pls read and A1-A11 and R2 at WP:CSD and and provide 5 successful "Article CSD" articles (with at least two of them are CSD A7) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY").Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i CSD A7: John Chidi

Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [21] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii CSD A7: Baltimore Fishbowl

N. See here and see further explanation on A7/A9/A11 on Notes section. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have a substitute - Legal justice advocates (diff - [22]) Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii CSD R2: G. Suresh Kumar

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [23] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv CSD R2: Polly Morgan (cinematographer)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [24] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer v any criteria: HashedIn (A3)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - [25] Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Copyright violation and paid editors

Pls read WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question

11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?

Answer: A COI/PAID editor can be spotted due to their editing behavior. Such an editor is likely to violate NPOV, adding advertisement (both direct and covert) and puffery, his text may lack Wikipedia:DUE, highlighting only one side, their username may show a relation to the subject of the article, the contribution history consist only of single type edits (all corporate, for instance), etc. Having COI is not necessarily a bad thing, however it's often hard to be objective which shows in an article. Less Unless (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Y. See further info on Notes section. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

12. What you should do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?

Answer: For an editor it's required to disclose such an affiliation either on their user page, or in the edit summary. Also the best way to behave in such case is to propose edits via request edit procedure or create articles through AfC. If the notice lacks and the edits are made, there should be a tag placed on top. Also the edits should be checked to comply with Wikipedia inclusion policies, such as notability, NPOV, due weight, copyright. If the edits comply with the policies, they are good to go, however the coi notice should be placed. (Not completely sure about this one). Less Unless (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Y. Report to WP:COIN if needed. Add {{subst:Uw-coi}} to their talk page and and tag COI on the page via twinkle. Editor can create/edit a COI page if they WP:Disclose it on the article talk page and their user page and edit the content with NPOV. COI editor can create a page in new page, however, many admins do ague they should go through AfC just like WP:PAID editors. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

13. Please read WP:PAID. What you should do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor? Answer: Paid editing should be disclosed. If such an editor fails or refuses to disclose the required information (client, employer, affiliation), they are prohibited from editing. The violation of these requirements may be reported to the Administrators' Noticeboard (Incidents) or the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but it's important not to reveal editors private information. The other option is reporting via email.Less Unless (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Y Report to WP:COIN if needed. Add {{subst:Uw-coi}} to their talk page and and tag COI on the page via twinkle. Move (do a R2) the page to draft space regardless how many edits and how many pages the editors have created. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Less Unless, Hi see assignment 4 above.11:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CASSIOPEIA^(talk). Can you please help me with installing MYCSD and CV-revdel, I don't quite understand where I should inserthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Music1201/MyCSD.js them. Can you give me a link to some guidelines. Thank you. Less Unless (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless For MyCSD - just click "install" on top of this page. For CV revdel, see below

1. go to your common.js - here

2. Place {{subst:iusc|User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js}} on the "2nd line" and save the edit.

3. go back to Your/common.js page (click edit) and see if the script has been installed (it should look something like "importScript('User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js'); //Linkback: User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js' Added by Script installer")

4. then you need to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache - follow the instructions as it depends which search engine you use.

5. Once you done all the above steps, click "More" on the top menu of the page and you will see 'Request CV revdel" on the drop-down list.

Let me know if this work for you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, Thank you. The revdel seems to be working, but the first tool - I'm not sure. When I go to it's page it doesn't have an unstall button, but this text:

"Code that you insert on this page could contain malicious content capable of compromising your account. If you import a script from another page with "importScript" or "iusc", take note that this causes you to dynamically load a remote script, which could be changed by others. If you are unsure whether code you are adding to this page is safe, you can ask at the appropriate village pump. The code will be executed when previewing this page." I have Twinkle and there is CSD - but is it what we need? Thank you.Less Unless (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless this is your CSD log - User:Less Unless/CSD log, try to nominate an article for CSD and wait for a few hours and see if it shows on your CSD log. By the way do you see "CSD log" on top of any Wikipedia page (you have to log in)? The "code message" is normal, it shows on my common.js as well. It any code is not working then go to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to seek help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear CASSIOPEIA. Sorry for bothering you again on this, but I need someone to explain me this CSD log thing. Yesterday I nominated an article for deletion under G11 as needed in the assignments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hameed_Yousuf ). The nomination was successful, however there's nothing in my CSD log. Can you help me with this? Or should I write to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? Thank you in advance! Less Unless (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless Can you pls give me the hist diff for (1) your nomination of Draft:Hameed_Yousuf] (2) when you create CSD log. By the way do you see "CSD log" on top of any Wikipedia page (you have to log in)? Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA , I've spent some time trying to figure out what's wrong and I think I've fixed it (as the articles are finally landing on my CSD log page). The issue was in Twinkle preferences, the listing was disabled. I've also added CSD log script to my common.js so now I see "CSD log" on top of any Wikipedia page (which was not the case). Thank you for your time! Less Unless (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless Good to know and thanks for informing. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless Pls nested the Wikipedia pages/article by double brackets before and after the articles' names. Thank you.194.193.196.107 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear CASSIOPEIA. I am having a hard time with the assignment on G12 nominations. I've read the guidelines twice, but I feel lost. For example, this draft has a copyright infringement - some text is copied. But the editor disclosed a COI, moreover I suspect OR and notability issues. What should I do in such case. I can't nominate for G12 obviously as only a part is violated, I don't know if the editor granted the rights to Wikipedia... Can you please guide me on this.Less Unless (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Also I have 2 more questions concerning CSD. 1. How or where can I check if the article was previously deleted and under what conditions - where can I find the deletion discussion? (G4) 2. How can I check if the user who created the article was blocked or not? (G5) Thank you! Less Unless (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless (1) Copyvio vs Revdel - If only a small part is copyvio then it would considered WP:REVDEL. We tag revdel so admin would remove the copyvio content and suppress view the edits in article history page. If big chunk of the content is copyvio then we tag G12. Go to Article for Creation (Draft pages) and you would more likely to find G12 articles there. (2) AfD - go to All public log page and paste the article's name under "Target (title or User:username for user)" and click show. If the subject has been previously deleted, then it will show the logs there - see example here. (3) At [New Page Feed: New Page Patrol you can see "block" show up on the left side of the article if the editor is blocked or you can simply go to the creator user page and/or creator talk page and see if they are block. Do note that we tag G5 only if the the page is created by the creator after the creator had been block created prior. If the creator is blocked after the page was recreated than G5 does not apply. Best. By the way pls provide all hist diffs for all CSD/PROD/AfD/COPYVIO/ Revdel and etc. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear CASSIOPEIA, I just wanted to let you know that I'm working on my assignment. It's taking me so long because I can't find 5 G12 articles and R2 seem to be rare as well. I have nominated 3 articles for G12 but the creators corrected everything so there's no copyright infringement. So I can't predict how long will it take. Thank you. Less Unless (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Thank you for informing. Check out Article for Creation you might able to find G12 and G11 there. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Note for R2 - look for unsourced potential notable WP:BLP subject in NPP new page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00

40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear CASSIOPEIA, thank you for this tip. I realized I didn't get the R2 first. I was waiting for someone else's redirect, I didn't think I can make my own. Also I first installed the script that automated the removal of R2-type redirects. I removed it now so you could see these entries in my CSD log. My other question - where should I out the difs you asked for? Thank you!Less Unless (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, See additional info on R2 Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. What you could do is find article (very important to note this) notable which the subject is notable (say a national elected politician) WP:BLP where by no sources are provided (Note if there is any external links/further reading or refs provided but without inline citation, then pls DO NOT R2 the article). You can find them on New page patrol at New Pages Feed. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, Got it! Thank you! Less Unless (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, You have only 2 more questions to finish this assignment, get them done so I could review and you can move on to next assignment. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I am trying my best looking for G12, I'll inform you asap. Less Unless (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Go to Special New Page Feed and click on "Articles for Creation" (Draft page submission), you would able to find some G11 and G12 there. Note, G12 applies to big chunk of the content is copyvio. For one or two sentences copyvio content, do a "request CV redvel' under "More" menu on top of the page (you need to download "CV-revde" script" as per instruction on top of this assignment"). Let me know if you need further assistance. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, thank you for assistance. I am monitoring both NPP and AfC, however the vast majority of the articles is created in one edit which makes it impossible to use Revdel (If I got the usage of it right). Therefore I nominated couple of articles for G12 when they had more than 50% of the text violated. Some of the contributors changed the text so now it doesn't violate copyright, some articles were draftified. So I am waiting for the eligible articles and there are not many (at least when I am monitoring) which would qualify as G12. However this is a great experience. By making mistakes I have better learnt the CSD criteria. Less Unless (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Ok. Do note, in the final exam, you need to have at least 80% CSD questions right. So you need to be very careful. When in doubt, leave it and let other more experience editors to handle it. Let me know if you need further assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I am finally done! Less Unless (talk) 15:40, 03 March2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Good work! See above comment and pls provide hist diff next time as well as the article name next time. See Notes below and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have added all the diffs as I should have and provided substitutes to the CSD noms that you crossed. I have read the notes - thank you. This has been the most difficult so far, it's very tricky. I am ready for the next one. Less Unless (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Good day, when provide hist diff - I mean your "contribution" log hist diff. See A7/A9/A11 Claim of significant on the Notes section. Do worry about AfD, PROP or BLPPORP as we are going to discussion it on the next assignment. Assignment 4 (this one) and Assignment 5 (next one) are the hardest then for the next 4 assignments after are reasonable easy. So power through! Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, I have added info on "Earwig Copyvio Detector script" on top of this assignment. Kindly install the script. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I'm sorry for what might be a stupid question, but what do you mean my "contribution" log hist diff. The diffs I provided are from my contributions to CSD-Log page. Do you mean they should have been from my normal "Contributions" list? Less Unless (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless This is your contribution log (you can find it on very top menu of every Wikipedia page next to log out icon.) You can also provide me the hist diff from the article page you edited. I can see the page was deleted but I can see who nominated it when I check on public log that is the reason I need the hist diff. Since sucessfully nominated pages to be deleted is one of the major criteria for this program, I could see all you CSDs from you CSD log not just the one you place in the assignment. For example from you CSD log you nominated Cris Pedrozo for A7 and it was declined by admin. For the his diff, the article (the version when you nominated the article for A7] "did" have a claim of significant and A7 could not be applied. Example of A7 content would be "Jose Cristian Pedrozo, known under the artistic name Cris Pedrozo, is a Uruguayan singer who practice with his band at his father garage on Tuesday, Friday and Saturday. They train very hard and hope to perform on the "Teacher Day" at the school auditorium on coming August 2020." or ""Jose Cristian Pedrozo, known under the artistic name Cris Pedrozo, is a Uruguayan singer. He loves singing since the age of 5 and convinces his parents to buy him a guitar so he could also write his own songs one day" or Draft:Liran Flier The Legend It Self but not Draft:Bhavik Tadigotla- Get it? (Pls note we can NOT CSD a draft page - there is other way to delete the draft which is not covered in this program - let me know if you want to know more about it) If a page do a have claim of significant even without a single source then it does not qualify A7. Dont A7 if there are some info on External link section. You can either do a WP:PROD, WP:BLPPROD or a WP:AfD (see Assignment 5 - they do have some different requirements). As for Durga Krishna you nominated G4, we could not see the deleted version, so we have to go by the content of the current version which I agree with the reviewer that G4 did not apply. G4 usually happens when the same or other editor create the same article name (sometimes slightly different such as using full name vs just the first and last name) with the same content/slightly different content which the subject has yet to show any notability . It usually happens within a week to a few months from the AfD date. However, to say that, some subjects are not notable irregardless how long the time passes such as if the subject is a basketball player in local circuit in Nepal unless he could pass GNG in some new developments in his life, the subject will fail GNG/SSN as no amount of editing can help to make the subject notable. Do note CSD is a quick process and it needs to fit the criteria. We will look at the differences and when to apply CSD, PROD, BLPPROD and R2 in Assignment 5. If you do a lot of nominations or prolific with your contribution, I would not able to check them all but will look at some of them only. Hope this help. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Notes

G11 (promo) - What constitute a G11? At times it is hard to define. Although if a article is bluntly promote or advertise about the subject then it is a G11. Sometimes, the it is a little subtle and that would be a judgement call. As a rule of thumb, if article about an entertainers (actor/singer/DJ/artist and etc) in dept of how hard they work, how motivated they are, using all the puffery/flowery languages and especially the subject does not meet notability guidelines. For a corporation, we would see they list down all they product/services, their directors/key person in the company, they mission, their client, they are the influencer in their industrial, all the words/phrased to enhance/market the company and no substantial info that is supported by independent reliable sources.

G12 (copyvio) -

Copyright violation addresses the use of original expression without permission of the holder which is a violation of laws even the credit is given to the source. For articles, the Copyright Law gives the copyright protection to the “original works of authorship fixed in in a tangible medium of expression” in the newspaper, magazine and freelance article at the moment of their creation, for the life of the creator plus 70 years after, and 95 years for corporation publication or 120 years from date of creation, whichever is shorter.

A “fact” is not considered an original work of authorship; but how the ways facts are recorded where the style of the writing, choice and/or arrangement of words are copyrightable. An infringement of copyright is committed when a person uses the “exact words /almost exact words in a consecutive manner” of the author/holder. To note, as a guideline, a few words copies from the original works and an idea of expression such as "weather the storm", 'crossing the Rubicon" "as dead as a doornail" and etc. proper nouns, document/event/treaty/person/title/ names are generally acceptable and so is a direct quote of speech. However, any longer phrases which would be expression in a number of ways are copyright protected. To use one of two short sentences on a large article generally is ok but it will considered infringement if the edit entry is consists of big percentage of the original work and yet for some (such as newspaper/press/journalism that takes their work very seriously - anything more than 4 exact consecutively words would considered copyvio). To avoid copyright infringement, one needs uses his/her own words to convey the source’s information. Paraphrasing could minimize the the copyright violation; however, "threshold" ultimately, court judgement would determined the if copyright violation has been made.

Copyvio for texts or images shared the same notion that it is not a copyvio if the verbatim texts or images are taken from free licence and Public domain sites/specific page/image. Always check the "original source" even if in WikiCommon the editor who upload the image claim taken from a PD site, we need to check the link provided and if the site indicate the image taken from another source, then we check the source. For texts, we need to check the sites if it is a PD, sometimes the disclaimer of PD is not on the page, but on the home page or "about" page or FAQ page. Secondly, for older article (no in NPP Feed), any copyvio texts found, we will revdel it as it is almost always it is not the first versions. If a small amount of verbatim texts found in NPP Feed articles, we would revdel them; but large amount of verbatim texts we will tag G12.

Lastly, here are a few examples where the German car maker Audi was sued for copyright breach.

1. Audi infringed copyright violation over Eminem’s song “Lose Yourself” in their commercial advertising. [26]

2. Audi was fined US $ 965,000 over copyright infringement for using 10 words from Brian Andreas’s story of “Angel of Mercy” - [27]

I think I just had a wake-up call, and it was disguised as a car, and it was screaming at me not to get too comfortable and fall asleep and miss my life. (Audi commercial) Some people don’t know that there are angels whose only job is to make sure you don’t get too comfortable & fall asleep & miss your life.(Brian Andreas’ print)

Spot COI / PAID COI editors are permitted to edit Wikipedia and create on the affected articles; however, it is "HIGHLY DISCOURAGE/NOT RECOMMENDED as it is very difficult for the COI editors to write the article/input info into the affected article in [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view}}.

1.Use person pronouns and possessives (I, we, my, our) 2.Multiple references to company, financial listings, staff lists, interviews, own publication, press release, blog and with clean references 3.Well written prose 'too perfect to be true' and only with single/2 edits 4.Editors have created multiple company related articles 5.Editors disclosed their COI/PAID in their userpage (not tag with COI disclose), or disclosure when they ask question in WP:Teahouse, WP:Help Desk, WP:AFCHD or receivers' talk pages.

A7/A9/A11 - Credible claim of significance - If the subject content do have such claim, then it is not a A7 even the article at the present stage of the article is not notable. Choose other method. (1) after a WP:BEFORE and found no independent reliable sources to support the notability requirements, then nominated for WP:AFD, or R2 to draft space if no sources are provided (do R2 sparingly). If it is a {[WP:BLP]] without source, then WP:BLPPROD or R2. - see Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance

Hope the above help. Note the above does not substitute the Wikipedia links and reading material I provided.

---

Filtering - Deletion policy & other alternatives

In assignment 4, we look at articles which fits in WP:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) where by the the articles are deleted within a few hours to 24 hours from the time of the nomination. In Assignment 5, we discuss the what actions should be taken for those articles do not fit under the CSD criteria but do not meet relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia.

Please read WP:PROD, WP:BLPPROD, WP:MERGE, WP:DRAFTIFY, WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:REDIR, WP:AFD and answer the following questions. (Provide links and hisdiff where they are applied.)

1. Under what circumstances do we propose deletion (PROD) a page and why do we do that?

Answer: We propose a deletion when we believe that the subject isn't eligible to secure themselves an article and the deletion would be uncontroversial - meaning that noone will object. (anyone, even the creator, can object to PROD). If the tag survives 7 days and a reviewing administrator also decides to delete the article - it will be deleted. However it can be undeleted if any editor requests that.

We propose deletion if the article doesn't meet any of CSD criteria, but according to Wikipedia policies should not be included. PROD is an easier option than AfD or FfD as it doesn't require discussion, however if someone objected to PROD it can't be used anymore.Less Unless (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

2. What should we do before we PROD a page? and what should be considered /action during a nomination?

Answer: Before the nomination it's crucial to check several things:

1) If the article has a good reason to be deleted. One should consider all the possible alternative options - enhance the article if possible or move to drafts for improvement by other editors (if the article has potential), merge or redirect. Deletion is the last option. It's also important to check the history to make sure that current state was not caused as result of vandalism and whether by reverting the edits it can be somehow saved.

1) When nominating it's important to check if the article is eligible for PROD: 1) Has it been PRODed before? 2) Has it ever been a subject of AfD/FfD discussion? 3) Has it been undeleted? If any of the above mentioned is true we can't PROD anymore - PROD can be used only ones. (but we can use AfD or FfD).

When nominating it's important to give a clear good reason for it in the tag placed on top of the article and a clear description in the summary. It's considered a good practice to inform the creator of the article about the PROD and place a Old prod tag on the article's talk page. Also it's useful to add the page to your watchlist. Less Unless (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Y very good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

3. What is the criteria when nominated a BLPPROD? If we choose not to BLPPROD a page what are the alternatives? (give three examples with explanations)

Answer:

To be eligible for a BLPPROD, the article should be a biography of a living person and have no sources at all. The tag may be removed after adding at least one reliable source to back any statement.

Y yes the key is living biography with no source. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The alternatives to BLPPROD are:

1.   Check the history in order to make sure the sources weren't deleted as a result of vandalism. If not research to find reliable sources and add them to the article.

2.   AfD or PROD if the subject definitely fails WP:GNG or speedy deletion if the subject meets criteria.

3.   Any unsourced negative or contentious statements can be removed without adding the tag. Less Unless (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Y The other alternative (1) AfD but pls do a WP:BEFORE first. (2) PROD if it is not a contravesial nomination. (3) Moved to draft if the R2 criteria is met (request a R2). 4. CSD if the page meet CSD criteria. (5) Place inline citation into the body text after find proper independent reliable sources an edit to meet GNG and mark review. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

4. In what circumstances we nominate an AFD and what step should be done prior such action.

Answer:We nominate AfD when we believe the subject fails Wikipedia inclusion criteria (both general and specific) but may be controversial (doesn't fit into CSD, PROD, BLPPROD) and require community discussion prior to deletion. Before nominating an article for deletion there's a number of steps that need to be taken: 1. Make sure the article can't be deleted per CSD, PROD or BLPPROD. 2. Try to enhance to article or inform the creator on this. Conduct a research to find reliable sources and if possible enhance the entry. Also check if there are interlanguage links and the quality of articles they are linked to. 3. Check history and talk page to find out if the article was vandalized\has been nominated before (what issues\objections were raised) 4. Consider other options – like draftify or merge if they apply. Less Unless (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Y very good. The main points are (1) it the article doesn't not meet CSD, PROD or BLP PROD. (2) Do a WP:BEFORE before nominate the article for AfD. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

5 How long do PROD, BLPPROD and AFD last prior it is deleted or decline?

Answer: All of the above mentioned nominations must last at least 7 full days. Less Unless (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. For AfD, if there is no voters or only a few voters or mixed vote, the AfD will be relisted for another 7 days. Usually it will be relisted max 2 more times. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

6. When a page has been previously BLPROD and was provide a source; however if you still think that article should be deleted, what can you do?

Answer: BLPPROD doesn't supersede any of the other deletion policies, therefore the article previously tagged BLPPROD still can be deleted per speedy deletion, PROD or AfD. Also it can be draftified or merged. Less Unless (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Y well-done. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

7. When do we decide whether an article should be PROD or WP:BLPROD or WP:AFD?

Answer:After having checked for possible options to avoid deletion (such as improvement, draftifying, redirecting or merging) we might consider the deletion. If we think the deletion is uncontroversial, but the article doesn't qualify for any of the CSD, we can use PROD. PROD can be used only once and should survive 7 days. If the article is contested we can still nominate it per AfD. If the article is a biography of a living person without a single source of any form we may use BLPPROD. If the tag is removed (after having added at least one reliable source) we can still nominate it for PROD or AfD if we believe it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies. We use AfD if CSD, PROD OR BLPPROD do not apply. The deletion discussion lasts for 7 days and closes after reaching a community consensus. Less Unless (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Y Right. The first thing we do when we review an article is to check if the article content fit CSD criteria especially G11 and G12. For G12, if the article is considered a sub class (few short/simple sentences such as XXX is the senator of New York, US. He won the contest on December 9, 2019 with 1000 votes.) and have a few inline citations - then G12 usually dosnt apply. However, for normal start class article with only a few sources or single source or it is very well written or have a flair of commercial/business jargon then we need to always check if G12 violation is made via Earwig copyivo dictation tool. we see this a lot in article concerning a musician, organisation and company where editor copy and paste the content from the websites especial. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

8. What are the reason to WP:Merge a page to another page?

Answer: There are several possible reasons to merge two or more pages or propose a merger (if it appears controversial): 1. One article duplicates another. Information which lacks in the receiving article can be added by copying it. 2. Two or more articles on related topics have a large bulk of the same content. In such case it's sensible to create one article with a broader scope of content. 3. Very short articles that aren't expected to be expanded or can't be expanded as there's not much information on the subject. 4. If one article requires additional information for better understanding which is already available in another larger article. Less Unless (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Y for your answer 1 above, we normally see the subject is the same but in slightly different name (such as one article use full name of a person, and the other use only first and last name) or same event but the articles names are slightly different names. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

9. List 10 reasons we propose a WP:REDIR.

Answer: The redirect function has many purposes. We can create redirects: 1.for alternative names of the article's subject to the one that is most suitable under WP:COMMONNAME. Also possible alternative spellings and likely misspellings. 2.for less specific forms of names and more specific forms of names to WP:COMMONNAME. 3.from abbreviations and initialisms as found in reliable sources 4.punctuation issues (dashes to hyphens, and vice versa) depending on official spelling or Wikipedia policy as well as common transliterations. 5.from plurals to singular forms which are generally preffered. 6.from closely related words. 7.from adjectives/adverbs to nouns. 8.from alternative capitalizations or old Wikipedia CamelCase links 9.to topics which are described within a wider article. 10.Also widely used in project space for shortcuts (different essays and policies) Less Unless (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

10. When an article can be moved to a draft space?

Answer: An article can be moved to draft space when it has potential or is of certain interest, but it's current quality isn't good enough to meet Wikipedia standards. These can be articles that are poorly written, lack reliable (or any) sources (even though the subject seems notable), or otherwise not ready for the mainspace. The article can be draftified as a result of deletion discussion, when author is given a chance to enhance the entry or in case of COI – to engage other editors. Also articles can be draftified as a save from deletion, and deleted after 6 month if there will be no activity. Less Unless (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Y when we do a R2 (move an article from new page to draft space), we need to make sure the article has a potential to meet GNG, not a signel source is provided. If the article do have some info on the External link section, notes, official websites links then dont do a R2. Also, only do a R2 sparingly. Even though move to draft is a space place for the creator to add the relevant sources into the article -see WP:BURDEN but some admins would considered it is a "rod to deletion", since if the creator does not do add in the source and click the submission button, the article might nominate for deletion under G13 six months later. So be aware. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

11. Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanation of your nomination.

Answer 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okhai

There's not much information, just basically the fact of existence. There are no reliable independent refs, just the ones of the community. As alternative, I offered redirect to the Memon people article. Less Unless (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Y only one voter and voted to merge. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PeerPong

I haven't found any reliable independent significant coverage, the service is inactive, the webpage domain is for sale, some refs are dead. The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. Less Unless (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alistair_Robinson

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NTRIATHLON. Less Unless (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mikio_Tachibana

Fails general and specific notability guidelines, no coverage found. Less Unless (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Before_the_Storm_(mixtape)

The album shows no evidence of notability for a standalone article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Alternatively I proposed merger or redirect to Tinchy Stryder. Less Unless (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Y only one voter and voted to redirect. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

12. Participate in 5 WP:AFD where by you are the first voter of the discussion. Please provide you reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.

Answer 1: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloe Harris - delete

Diff - here

The subject doesn't meet both general and specific notability criteria. The coverage is not significant, just several mentions on the roles played. Less Unless (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aid dependency#Aid dependency - keep

Diff - here

Looks like a notable subject, the issues mentioned can be addressed. The list of references is reliable. Needs attention of a professional. Less Unless (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hal Lester#Hal Lester - delete

Diff - here

Me research resulted in 2 unreliable sources, which means the subject clearly fails the WP:GNG as well as specific. Less Unless (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aman Mishra#Aman Mishra - delete

Diff - here

No reliable independent sources found, couple of small roles, not notable per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Less Unless (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 5: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D Printer Chat#3D Printer Chat - delete

Diff - here

No reliable independent sources found, no significant coverage, all the refs are user generated, user generated. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. Less Unless (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

13. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons.

Answer 1: Daniel Mendez Diff here

The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE/WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources found, half of the refs are user generated, the other half are his profiles on different sources. Less Unless (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Y - see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Kristian Hegner Reinau Diff here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC - all 8 criteria. No coverage at all found, except for the university he is currently working at. Less Unless (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Y - see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

14. Nominate 2 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons.

Answer 1: Noel Lynch

Diff - here

Personally I believe an editor should first do their best to fix the problems an article has. I would have found sources to this one, but as I have to nominate articles for WP:BLPROD I've proposed this one as none of the statements in the article are supported by sources. The article is unreferenced since 2016 - the previous links were dead and removed. At the moment there is one link but it leads to a party's page with no mentions of the subject. Less Unless (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Cameron Parker

Diff - here

Actually it's the same as in previous one except for this article never had any links. I hope I got the policy right. Less Unless (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

15.Nominate 2 article for WP:NPPDRAFT and state your reasons.

Answer 1: Draft:Ikefe Evans Andrew

Diff - here

The player passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he played and is playing in the tier one professional league clubs. However there are no sources, NPOV issues and general clean up needed. Less Unless (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

N. We can not R2 draft. R2 is to move a page to other name space. Here we want to move a new page to draft, so draft space can not do a R2. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Draft:Ingmar Hoerr

Diff - here

The subject is notable per WP:GNG - I have found info on him in reliable German media, however the article is unsourced. Less Unless (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

N. We can not R2 draft. R2 is to move a page to other name space. Here we want to move a new page to draft, so draft space can not do a R2. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

NEW ANSWERS

Answer 1: Debasis Laha, Draft:Debasis Laha Diff - here] Potentially notable subject, no sources provided. Less Unless (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You place R2 here but you removed the R2. The R2 was correctly placed actually. Cassiopeia^(talk)

Answer 2: Dragon XL, Draft:Dragon XL Diff - here] Potentially notable subject, no sources provided. Less Unless (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

To move the article to draft page is correct, but you can use normal move from the twickle but need to do a R2. To request for a R2, place {{Db-r2|bot=Not a single source provided}} (or bot= the reason you nominate this article for R2). Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Try again: Answer again (1): Battle of Suez (1956) Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

N. see the tag message. NOTE: We can NOT nominate a draft page for R2. The whole point for R2 is to move a page from mainspace (new page) to draft space. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Try again: Answer again (2): Jama'a Shingani, Shingani Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

see here it was removed by another editor. The page can be R2 actually.

Try again Answer (3): Crescendo (2019 film) Diff - here

Y even the article was not CSD#R2 and moved to draft space by admin since the creator added sources and remove you tag, it is a right R2.

Try again Answer (4): Ore Jatri (1951 film) Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Y even the article was not CSD#R2 tag was removed it is a correct tag as may editor do not know about Wikipedia:NPPDRAFT. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Less Unless See assignment 5 above. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, thank you! I have a question regarding AfD nominations and discussions. I have been participating in this kind of activity for some time, can I provide those entries done before or should they be new? Thank you. Less Unless 12:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Do nominate new ones. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, I am not sure I mentioned anywhere - it is necessary to do a WP:BEFORE when nominated an article for AfD as well as to vote an article in AfD discussion. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

CASSIOPEIA thank you! I am doing the check, but it's good to have the checklist before your eyes. I forgot about talk pages, but generally I am aware of this requirements. Less Unless (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA , I have finished this one. Less Unless (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Good day I am here to inform you that I have changed my user name to sentence case. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you, good to know. I hope you got my message about the module completion yesterday.Less Unless (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, I have some personal things which I need to do and might be busy for the next few days. I will try to the review assignment at soonest. At the meant time, I posted Assignment 6 for you below for you to work on as the assignment 6 is not a prerequisite of assignment 5. Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Please take all the time you need. And be healhty! :) Less Unless (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Pls see review above.

1. I will wait until the closing of AfD/PROD/BLD PROD for Q11-Q14 before review it which will take another 4 days.
2. we CAN NOT do Afd/PROP/BLDP for draft article. (This program is set for New Page Petrol (NPP) only; as for draft space (Article for Creation (AfC), though some the guidelines apply in both NPP and AfC, the reviewing process and criteria is different. If you are interest after you have finished this NPP program, I could guide you through it so you would also able to obtain AfC reviewer right) You can do CSD for both new page or for draft (Article for creation (AfC) page).
3. Kindly redo Q15 for R2. R2 is to move page to other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. Here we do R2 for NPP page to draft space which is not similar process as AfD/PROP/BLPPROD. We do a R2 for potential new page where no a source is provided. If the article do have some info on the External link section, notes, official websites links then dont do a R2. Also, only do a R2 sparingly. Even though move to draft is a space place for the creator to add the relevant sources into the article -see WP:BURDEN but some admins would considered it is a "rod to deletion", since if the creator does not do add in the source and click the submission button, the article might nominate for deletion under G13 six months later. So be aware. Place {{Db-r2|bot=Not a single source provided}} (or bot= the reason you nominate this article for R2) on top of the page. Pls let me know if you need some help and ping me once you have the R2. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you for the review. Can you please explain me why my R2 nominations don't qualify, I don't understand(. As you stated I nominated new articles which have potential notability-wise, but lacked sourcing. The sources were added to one of the articles after my redirect. Thank you!Less Unless (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, For Draft:Ikefe Evans Andrew - Editor Robert McCallon nominated the article for BLPPROD - see here 1. And you moved (using normal move) the page to draft space 2 instead "request for R2". R2 need the permission to move the page draft. For Ingmar Hoerr there were some changes see here 3 and I am not sure what was going on but to move to draft was a correct option. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Oh, there wasn't BLPPROD nomination when I moved it, but after taking a look now I think the nomination was done almost simultaneously, but slightly earlier then my R2. I haven't noticed it. What should I have done in such case? Undone my r2? So do I have to replace just 1 nonamation or both?

How is a R2 request performed? I thought it's just a move...I'm a bit lost, sorry. Less Unless (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have replaced assignment 15, but I doubt I understood you correctly. Please take a look. Thank you. Less Unless (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, R2 vs normal move: Normal move via twinkle is a move without the permission of a admin. A R2 is a "request" to move the article from new page to draft space and it needs to be approved by an admin. An editor can do a R2 if they have "page move manager user right" which most of the reviewers do not have. A draft page can be moved by any confirmed editor to article space (the article still need to be reviewed by NPP editor); but for a new page to be moved to draft space, it would be better to request a R2. We have 3 venues to create an article (1) New page WP:NPP by any confirmed user and the article will be reviewed by a NPP reviewer (which this is the program you are talking to be a NPP reveiwer) (2) Draft page (Article for Creation WP:AfC)- by unconfirmed or new editors who are not familiar how to create an article and guidelines/ requirements. The draft article will be reviewed by an AfC reviewer/patroller. Once the draft article is accepted by a AfC reveiwer, the article will be placed in NPP queue for a NPP reveiwer to go through them, and if it is accepted then it will be placed in the mainspace. Google would index the article in Google search engine once the page is in Wikipedia mainspace (usually it takes about 24-48 hours after the article is in the mainspace). If a reviewer is both a AfC and NPP reveiwer, then once the draft page is accepted it will placed int he mainspace directly. (3) for a editor who has "autopatroller" user right, they can write an article and the article is self reveiwed/patolled and will be placed in the manspace directly. To request for a R2, place {{Db-r2|bot=Not a single source provided}} (or bot= the reason you nominate this article for R2). Hope this help. If you need to clarify further, pls let me know.

Q11 (5) and A12 (2) - will wait until the closing of th AfD. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless see above about R2. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I am very sorry, but I don't understand the R2. I understand that it can't be used for drafs as it's a way to move an article to draft for improvement - I haven't placed it on a draft - this I understand :) If you take a look at the history you'll see that it was draftified after I placed a tag by another user. Here it was draftified almost an hour after my nomination. Also it was just moved without any nomination.

That's how I've done it - I found an article which is potentially notable, but lacks sources. I have placed the code you mentioned here on the top of the article. Is it correct? Is it considered a nomination for draftifying?

Because another user here says that the tag I have placed is used for redirects not for articles ("not a R2 which is for redirects"). I'm losing my way here completely. R2 is what we had here in CSD section - after moving an article to draft (I am doing it manually with MOVE) I nominated the redirects left per R2. This was very clear to me. I wouldn't have bothered you with this, but I can't find any information about nominating an article per R2(there's information only about removing redirects per R2).

Initially after reading the guidelines I thought I have to move an article to draft manually (if I have NPP rights) and nominate the redirects per R2. But you explained that there's a difference between nomination for draft and moving to draft. Now I am really lost and can't understand what has to be done. Sorry( Less Unless (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Less Unless Your nomination here was correct despite it was removed by other user. Rs is "moving a page from the mainspace to another namespace when appropriate (WP:CSD#R2)". As per WP:NPPDRAFT we usually nominated a CSD#R2 when the article in new pages to draft space if the article is without source (usually BLP and a potential draft (note another alternative is to nominate for BLPPROP). Many reviewers do not use R2 for they are no familiar of R2. We only use R2 sparingly. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Less Unless Reviewed remaining nomination for AfD. See comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Notes:

• WP:NPPDRAFT /R2 - do so for articles have no sources or sources that are primary/not independent, such as from their home page, user generated sites or sport databases, club home page for sportspersons. If you could find 3 independent, reliable sources to support the notability of the subject, then please do so and add the source in the article and mark review.

• PROD - (1) When it does not fall under CSD but not controversial deletion with the notion that it will be deleted if the article is AfDed. (2) We can only PROD the article once thus do check the history page to make sure the article has not been PROD before. (3) If the PROD is removed, do not replace it (4) PROD would last for 7 day start from the date of the nomination and will be either deleted or removed of the tag by an uninvolved admin who decides the outcome of the nomination.

• BLPROD - (1) nominated if only there is no source for article about a living person. (2) BLPPROD can be removed only an reliable is added. (3) Even item 2 has been performed but editor still think it is should be deleted under PROD (1) criteria then a PROD can be tag. (3) if PROD (1) is not applicable and editor could nominate the article for AfD if the subject is not notable.

• AfD - Nominated articles to AfD if the subject is not notable or fall under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. A WP:BEFORE should be done prior the nominated. If the article states the nationlity of the subject and a local name is provided, do search the local name in said country in Google to look for sources if any (2) Reason / justification based on notability guidelines should be address when nominate AfD or participate in a AfD. (3) Do not AfD if the sources are provided but you can locate/view them due to paywall, print book/article to determined the content claimed as per sources. (4) Request paywall article /print book from WP:RX to view the content (make sure you have you email provided in your preferences page, so the RX editors could send you the article via email). (4) You might want to reconsider not to AfD an article if the sources of the article could be found mostly in other languages besides English or other languages that you dont comprehend.

Tagging

In this assignment we look at tagging pages for problems. There any many tags available in Wikipedia and we will look at some of them here.

• Please enable Wikipedia:HotCat in your "Wikipedia references" - see How to enable/disable HotCat. The tool lists and proposes existing categories for auto-completion.
• Pls download StubSorter user script. The script is for adding/removing stub tags.
• Pls download Rater user script. The scripts provides a dialog interface to add, remove, or modify WikiProject banners, including class and importance assessment. Accessible from either the page itself or its talk page. after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
• Please enable User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper gadget for editing, adding, and importing short descriptions.

Tagging in the article

Please read WP:TAGGING and answer the questions below. Please provide explanation in your own words and provide hist diff when applicable.

1. Why do we place tags on the article?

Answer: We place tags on articles to inform about certain issue(s) that exist(s) within the article. For the editors they indicate certain problems that and need to be addressed and for the readers warns them about problematic content. Less Unless (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. If we able to solve the problem then solve it instead of taggings. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

2. What does "drive by tagging" mean?

Answer: "Drive by tagging" means adding tags for problems that are not obvious without identifying them and describing well enough for them to be addressed. Every tag should refer to major obvious problem and should be justified either in the summary or in the article's talk page.Less Unless (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

3. List down 8 common tagging should be avoided in an article?

Answer: 1) Tags that refer to similar problems (like no footnotes and one source) 2) Over tagging with too many tags – it's more sensible to place 2-3 major and later tag the rest or improve the minor yourself if you can. 3) Wrong tags that don't address the exact problem you noticed. It's better to write about it in the talk page. 4) Non-specific tags that don't indicate what exactly should be addressed. In this case one should add explanation in the summary of on the talk page. 5) Unhelpful tags – tags that indicate the problems which if corrected won't save the article if it, for example fails the WP:GNG. It's necessary to check first if the article is eligible for Wikipedia inclusion according to the major policies. 6)Redundant tags where according to Wikipedia's article classification system the article class indicates of the problems. (most C-class articles lack enough references to be B-class, so tagging a C-class article with an article-wide tag for lack of references is nearly always redundant). 7) If the problem is easily fixed the editors are highly encouraged to do so rather than place a tag.

I've read the guideline 3 times, but I can't find the 8th...( Less Unless (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Y (8) Removing tags at the inappropriate time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

4. When it is appropriate to remove the tags?

Answer:

1. If you don't see the problem mentioned in the tag (and you don’t have coi) within article and there's no mention of it on the talk page you can remove the tag. Previous editors might have forgotten to do so when they corrected the issue. It's considered a good practice to leave a notice on the talk page explaining why you have removed the tag. 2. In controversial cases, you can remove a tag after reaching consensus on the articles talk page or user talk page concerning the article. If no one responses within a reasonable amount of time (4 days at least) you can remove the tag. Less Unless (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

5. Tag 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed where appropriate tags are needed and provide associate personal message to creator using page curator tool.

(pls provide links)

i. Answers: N/A

ii. Answers:N/A

iii. Answers:N/A

iv. Answers:N/A

v. Answers:N/A

vi. Answers:N/A

vii. Answers:N/A

viii.Answers:N/A

ix. Answers:N/A

x. Answers:N/A

6. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and use StubSorter user script. Tag 10 sub class article correctly from Special:Newpagesfeed. (pls provide links)

i. Answers: Elsa (river)

Diff - hereLess Unless (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. We usually only tag one sub sort. This article could be a sub or start class. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answers: Stanislas Ouaro

Diff here Less Unless (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

N. This article is a start class and not a sub class. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

New answer - Mohammad Alavi Tabar

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answers: Charles francis summers

Diff here Less Unless (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answers: Siméon Sawadogo

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

N. This article is a start class and not a sub class. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

New answer - Merida brushfinch - replaced with a more specific tag Diff - hereLess Unless (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. The article has since expanded see [here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

v. Answers: Edmond Brion

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

N. This article is a start class and not a sub class. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

New answer - Otto Pflanze Diff - hereLess Unless (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answers: Xandru Grech

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answers: Elvira Shatayeva

Diff - hereLess Unless (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. It is a bibliography so would be a correct stub tag. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

viii.Answers: Muyser Lantwyck (de) family

Diff -here Less Unless (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answers: Birgir Jakobsson

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

N. This article is a start class and not a sub class. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

New answer - Lycium australe Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. The article since has been expanded see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

x. Answers: Horisont (Estonian magazine)

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. We usually only tag one sub sort. This article could be a sub or start class. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Categorization

7. Please read Wikipedia:Categorization and assign 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed with one or more useful categories. You can check similar articles for potentially relevant categories. (pls provide links)

i. Answers: Abbas Kargar

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answers: Paul J. O'Leary

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answers: Charles Francis Summers

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answers: 2013 Big Ten Conference Women's Basketball Tournament

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

v. Answers: Earnside Castle

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answers: Iris Versari

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answers: List of fossil pinnipeds

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

viii.Answers: Danilo Barozzi

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answers: Battle of Chishui River

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

x. Answers Alfred Griffiths

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Sorting

8. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:Content assessment and tag 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed with appropriate WikiProject and class types on the articles' talk pages. Please use Rater user script. (pls provide links)

i. Answers: List of Australia national rugby league team records

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Y - I would say it is a start class and not a C class article. Cassiopeia^(talk)

ii. Answers: Of A Simple Man

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answers: This Gun for Hire (TV movie)

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answers: Katharine Kyes Leab

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Y - I would say it is a start class and not a C class article and it is a biography so needs to add this. Cassiopeia^(talk)

v. Answers: NBA London Game

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answers: Makhtar Gueye (basketball)

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Y It would be a start class. it is a biography so needs to add these. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answers: List of paintings by Bernardo Strozzi

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

viii.Answers: Nora Illi

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Y A biography and subject is from Switzerland - need to add - {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nora_Illi&type=revision&diff=947765145&oldid=947607708&diffmode=source these]. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answers: Josette Hébert-Coëffin

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. You meant this hist diff this hist diff. A biography, need to add this. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

x. Answers Family tree of Chinese monarchs (Warring States period)

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Less Unless, See assignment 6 above. This and the next few assignments are much easier :).Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Since you dont have the NPP reviewer user right at the moment, you dont need to answer (not applicable/NA) Q5. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have finished the last module, now looking for articles to nominate per R2 foe previous assignment. Will inform as soon as it's done (will try to finish today). Less Unless (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, See the above and kindly read Wikipedia:Content assessment for article class guidelines. Pls read R2 on assignment 5 communication section. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have replaced the stub articles that were wrongly assessed as well as added new R2 answers above. Thank you for the explanation. I understood the difference now. Less Unless (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Well-done!. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Communication and editor interactions

Wikipedia project is a collaboration of many editors, some are experienced and some are new to the Project ad Wikipedia values all constructive editors' contributions alike. Communication in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged especially to new editors who are not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies for most new editors find it is a steep learning curve during the first few months of editing articles or creating articles in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and welcome template and answer the following questions. Do provide links and hist diff where appropriate.

Communication

1. How do we deal with a bad faith registered user and how do we deal with a bad faith IP editor?

Answer:

First of all make sure it's a bad faith user, rather than a good faith who is not acquainted with the standards of Wikipedia. If you are 100% sure, and it's a registered user, write him a short (better personal) notice on their talk page kindly asking to stop disruptive behavior (if it's vandalism you can revert the edit first). If there's no answer and user persists in such behavior, place up to 3-5 warning depending on the level of vandalism on his talk page. If the warnings are ignored report to administrator (vandalism notice board or incidents noticeboard depending on the type of bad faith edits). An IP user should be treated with as much respect as a registered user. So making sure they are bad faith is crucial. If the user's contributions consist only of vandalism, you can trace their IP using a number of tools and place a tag {{whois}} on the talk page. Also report immediately to administrator (vandalism notice board or incidents noticeboard). In case of a single or several disruptive acts I would do the same as with the registered user – notice, then warnings, then reporting to administrator. Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Y good. We treat IP or registered user the same way. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

2. What can we do to welcome and help the newcomers.? (List down 10 different ways/scenario)

i. Answer: Welcome them by placing the welcome template. Less Unless (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Praise them for the good work they've done, encourage to do more. Less Unless (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: If they made a minor mistake we can correct it and write them a small constructive notice - greet and thank them for contribution and explain how their work can be improved based on a guideline. You can also offer your help or advice. Less Unless (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: If you have noticed the newcomer is trying to do something but fails (maybe code or style mistakes), you can ask them what they are trying to achieve and lend a helping hand - either guide how to do it, or do it for them offering a link to the guideline for them to learn in the future. Less Unless (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: When talking to a newcomer make him feel you are all even as everyone has the same right to edit. Encourage him to try, say that everything is being saved and any of his actions (even wrong) won't ruin Wikipedia. Less Unless (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Treat newcomers as you would like to be treated. Everyone was a newcomer once, treat them with patience even if it takes time for them to understand something. Less Unless (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: Try to respond promptly as it will show the newcomer that you care and remember about them. Less Unless (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

viii. Answer: Introduce a newcomer to Wikipedia Projects where they can find likeminded people and feel less alienated. Less Unless (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answer: Fix the newcomer's edits rather than revert, as reverting may discourage them from editing. While fixing you can teach them something new. Less Unless (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. We would provide links to Wikipedia guidelines (max 3 links per messages sso the editors would be be overwhelm) Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: Offer your help in the long run or offer such possibilities as mentorship or academies. Less Unless (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. good Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

3. In you own words, provide 10 ways to avoid biting the newcomers.

i. Answer: Be calm while talking to the newcomers, avoid unnecessary exclamation marks or other signs of emotional response, avoid sarcasm and judgemental words. Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: When reverting explain constructively the reason and it's better to write a short notice about it on the newcomers' talk page. Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Blocking should be the last resort, first try to resolve the issue in the calmly by means of conversation. Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. For vandalism edits, at we could report the editor to WP:AIV after the 4th warnings and for serious disruptive we would raise issue to WP:ANI and for WP:edit warring we would report it to WP:AN3. Admins will evaluate or intervene and issue a block accordingly if a block is warrant. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Try to use simple plain English rather than Wikipedia abbreviations or jargon, that might be hard to understand. Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Don't rush with deleting or tagging new articles with multiple tags, this might discourage a newcomer. Wait for a day or more to see how it's being developed. Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. We always CSD if the article violate copyvio, a promotional or vandalism article and etc (see CSD list). Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Try to write personalized messages rather than use templates as they might frighten newcomers. Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. You can use template and add personal message. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: If you see the newcomers article is already tagged with maintenance templates, don't add another one even if there's a problem. Too many wrongs may cause a person to give up and leave. You can write them a friendly message pointing out the things that need attention or even helping out with some of them. Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Personal message is always welcome as communication is the key in Wikipedia among the users. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

viii. Answer: Listen to the person and their ideas, which may be helpful for the whole community rather than insist your option is the only one.Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answer: Don't stop the newcomers from taking part in different discussions justifying it with lack of experience. New people may have another valuable perspective and they have to learn too. Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. We always encourage new editors to edit, provide links for guidelines, send friendly messages, educate and guide them as we are all a newcomer once. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: When a newcomer creates a discussion that has already been going or resolved kindly point it. The same with signing their posts - newcomers often forget to do it.Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

4. Place 5 different welcome templates on 5 different newcomers. (Pls provide user talk page links)

i. Answer: talk page Less Unless (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: talk page Less Unless (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: talk page Less Unless (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: talk page Less Unless (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: talk page Less Unless (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

5. List 5 uncivil behaviors and explain how you would duel with them.

i. Answer: rudeness, profanities, belittling, name-calling etc - anything that attacks a person. If the degree of the incivility is bearable, I would kindly ask to stop name-calling and get back to the issue and it's constructive discussion. If the opponent continues such behavior, I would request dispute resolution. If the attacks are too harsh, I would place the warning template and inform admin. Less Unless (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Y.Good. Lesser personal attcks would result in warning but for extreme cases even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block such as death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Outing which means revealing personal information that is not on a user's page and user doesn't want to disclose it. Such information can be true or false – it doesn't matter. In case of outing (if my information is disclosed) I would revert these edits and inform an oversighter to delete edit history. Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Y.Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Threats of violence and hateful speech. Such examples of incivility should be immediately reported to ANI. Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Baiting – if a person tries to provoke (or it seems to me they are doing so) I and will not respond in the same manner. I will ask to explain what was meant by the words said to understand the person better. The main thing is the content or issue we are talking about. I would ask to get back to that. Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Quoting out of context, lying. I would kingly ask to take a closer look at the context where the words were taken from or in case of lying prove what's stated with diffs. I would offer to discuss the current issue. Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. We could revert the edit and place an unsourced warning template on the editor's talk page. If the fault info continues adding in by the same editor, then a level 2 vandalism warning template would be used. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A token of appreciation

We reward Wikipedia editors for their hard work and due diligence by awarding them barnstars as a token of appreciation, encouragement and make its recipient feel good of their contributions. The choice of banstar given should be fair and appropriate, which will help prevent over-use. There are many different type of banstars, kindly read Wikipedia:Barnstars, Wikipedia:Personal user awards

5; Give 5 different banstars to 5 different editor and do provide relevant text as to why you are awarding them. (Pls provide links)

i. Answer: Diff here

Text : Now that I've learnt what a barnstar is I would like to give this one to you for your patience and kindness when I just started and had difficulties with what now seems very simple. Less Unless (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Diff here

Text: I would like to thank you for the time you spent explaining me the copyright nuances and you great humor and light approach. Less Unless (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Diff here

Text: Thank you for your enduring contributions to our Clean-up Project community! Less Unless (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Diff here

Text: I would like to award you this barnstar for the amount of work and effort you've put into WIR Less Unless (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Diff here Text: I feel enormously grateful for time and effort you've put into teaching me within NPP Academy! Less Unless (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Short description

9. short description suitable to allow a reader to identify which search result is most likely to suit their needs. All mainspace pages should have a description of what they are preferably limit to about 40 characters, but function is important. Please read Wikipedia:Short description and Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions and provide 10 short descriptions in 10 different articles from Special:Newpagesfeed. Please enable User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper prior making the edit. (pls provide links)

i. Answer: Mouhamed Niang

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Panjab Ali Biswas Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Walther Vetter - imported from Wikidata - will replace if needed Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Robyn Klein Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Azficel-T Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Hilman Djajadiningrat Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: Mercedes Jamison Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

viii. Answer: Maynard J. Brichford Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answer: Morgiri Fort Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: Xandarella Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Less Unless, See Assignment 7 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Cassiopeia. I have finished the assignments. I had some difficulties with assign. 2 and 3 as they seam a bit overlapping. Less Unless (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Reviewed. Well-done. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Tools and help

#	Tools	For / Functions
1	Twinkle	Wikipedia gadget to assist common maintenance tasks
2	Hotcat	Wikipedia gadget to propose existing categories for auto-completion
3	Resource Request	Wikipedia help desk to locate content of printed books or form paywall sites
4	Google translate	Translation
5	Citation Tool for Google Books	Citation tool for Google books
6	Reverse Image Search	Reverse image serach
7	User:Less Unless/CSD log	Your Criteria for speedy deletion log]
8	Unless&max=&startdate=&altname= This is your AfD log	Your Article for Deletion log
9	Earwig's Copyvio Detector via web Earwig Copyvio Detector script	Copyvio detector tool
10	CV-revdel	Delete copyrighted content request
11	StubSorter user script.	Adding/removing stub tags
12	Rater user script	Adding, removing, or modifying WikiProject banners, including class and importance assessment
13	StubSorter user script	Adding stub class sorter
14	Shortdesc helper script Wikipedia gadget - Adding short description in the article
15	Special:NewPagesFeed	Search new articles in Wikipedia
16	Copyvio Check	Displays the % of copyvio in a separate section of the info menu of the NPP toolset.
17	Superlinks	Quickly view pages and information related to the page they are currently viewing or editing without the need to navigate away form current page
18	NPP flowchart	NPP flowchart

---

Less Unless, No home works for Assignment 8 - Just make sure you have all the tools which I have provided to you so far and know how to use them and when to use them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Putting all together -reviewing articles

• Please install COPYVIO check script. This is a script which displays the % of copyvio in a separate section of the info menu of the NPP toolset. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

• Please install Superlinks script. This script allows users to quickly view pages and information related to the page they are currently viewing or editing without the need to navigate away from the page or open large numbers of new tabs. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

• Bookmark NPP flowchart in your devices.

• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

Reviewing articles

Please refer to NPP flowchart and read all the reading material provide from Assignment and tools 1-8 and answer the questions below. Please pick 10 articles from the new pages or draft pages from Special:NewPagesFeed and follow the NPP flowchart and provide the appropriate answer below (pls place N/A if not applicable). Pick articles that have 3-4 sources for the exercises below.

0. Example

1. Article (pls provide link) = Assignment 2 - Sources Q 8 and 9 Q 8 - David Howell Petraeus
2. Article titles (need to change if so state the change) = OK
3. Images copyright = US free image
4. NPOV (if not then state why) =yes
5. COI / PAID (if yes then provide explanation)= no indication
6. COPYVIO (if yes then provide source (URL) = not
7. Article Class = Stub class
8. Short Description = U.S. Army general
9. Categories (3-5) = 1952 births  ; Living people ; Commandants of the United States Army Command
10. Review (Review/AfD/PROD/BLPPROD/R2) = Reviewed
11. Reason (for x) = meet GNG and Military history/Notability guide#2
12. Sources (see below)

Pls indicate "y" for yes or "n" for no after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n".

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch	CNN is independent of the government.	CNN is generally considered reliable.	CNN shows him taking the oath.	✔ Yes
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893	Independent of the government	Is very opinionated	Addresses the topic in detail	✘ No
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012	The subject isn't connected to the maker of the family tree.	Can't be verified.	? Not sure	✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005	Not connected to the subject.	The source is considered reliable.	Talks about the subject in detail.	✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html	The subject is talking to the author.	It comes from a reputable news source.	He is the subject of the interview.	✘ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html	The author is not directly connected with the subject.	The source is a news source that has a reputation of being reliable.	The article talks about him in detail.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

---

1. Article = Jet Novuka
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = no image
4. NPOV = not quite - there are some words that can't be considered neutral: famously known, a pupil that only went to school for acting.
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = stub
8. Short Descr = South African actor
9. Categories = 1971 births, living people, People from Mthatha, South African actors
10. Review = Reviewed
11. Reason (for v) = notable per WP:GNG, on the local level also per WP:NACTOR
12. Sources (see below)

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/daily-dispatch/20160716/281749858696576	the source is one of the biggest newspapers in the country, not connected to the subject.	the biggest newspaper in the country	enough information to back certain statements	✔ Yes
https://www.news24.com/MoveMag/Archive/veteran-actor-jet-novuka-talks-about-his-career-20170728	South Africa's highest-selling women's weekly magazine, however there are quotes that can't be considered independent, so there are parts of information that can be used	as a magazine should be reliable	the article is dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5251486/	subject's personal profile	user generated	single mention of the role played	✘ No
https://www.tvsa.co.za/actors/viewactor.aspx?actorid=6867	? not sure	? may be user generated	the page is the subject's profile, so there's plenty of facts	? Unknown
https://www.screenafrica.com/2020/03/16/film/business/moroccan-film-monsters-dominates-at-the-rapidlion-2020-awards-ceremony/amp/	not connected to the subject	? not sure	enough to back the statement	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have also found several sources that can be added to the article: this - there are a lot of quotes, but independent as well, this, this. Less Unless (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Y I wont marked it as meet the notability guidelines for GNG or NACTOR. In term of the sources, if source are interviews type (unless only one quote and the rest is from the press) then it is NOT indepedent as the info is gathered from the subject and cannot be used /contribute to notably requirements. In addition, if the sites are connected/associated with (such as Channel 24) then it is also considered not independent. Be careful of source content include I think, I/me... which means it is the onion of the writer and it would be not acceptable in certain form. This1 does not look reliable source to me and This-2 look like a marketing site. I usually dont review article which the info could largely could be found in in other languages/local languages as there I could not be certain other independent reliable sources would be found and that same as in AfD unless I know the subject / catogories very well such as in mixed martial arts (MMA) where I will go to the length to find the fighter local name and go to the local pages to find articles and get it translated and see anything I would use. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

---

2.

1. Article = Jack White (basketball)
2. Article titles = ok, although there are two options - basketball or basketball player.
3. Images copyright = OK, CC BY-SA 2.0
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = start
8. Short Descr = Australian basketball player
9. Categories = 1997 births, Duke Blue Devils men's basketball players, Australian men's basketball players, living people
10. Review = reviewed
11. Reason (for v) = passes WP:GNG as well as WP:SPORTSPERSON - was a part of National teams in big international competitions.
12. Sources (see below)

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22115886/aussie-jack-white-living-dream-duke-blue-devils-coach-k	One of the biggest sports media in Australia and Oceania	The source is considered reliable	the whole article is dedicated to the subject, although there are many quotes, there's also plenty of author's text	✔ Yes
https://goduke.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/jack-white/11781	official webpage of the subject's team	affiliated with the subject, can't be considered reliable	lists all the subject's achievements	✘ No
http://www.fiba.basketball/news/australias-jack-white-looks-to-take-next-step	International Basketball Federation is a reputable organization	comes from a reputable source	the article talks about subject in detail	✔ Yes
https://balldurham.com/2019/07/11/jack-white-wins-bronze-medal-australia-world-university-games/	fan site/news source about Duke Blue Devils - the team subject plays for	user generated fan site	enough information to back statements	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Also found these this, this, this. Less Unless (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Y this -1 is not independent as the info is from the subject himself.v this 2 even though there are some info from the subject, but there are info from the press itself. It is a subjective call here. this-3 is not a independent nor reliable source as this site is (Victory country) is a promotional org and White came through the program - third paragrape "White has progressed through the Victoria Country program, and with the best coaches available to him,.......". Being an under 17 national player does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL unless more independent reliable enable White meets GNG. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

---

3.

1. Article = Flayslane Silva
2. Article titles = ok
3. Images copyright = no image
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = stub
8. Short Descr = Big Brother Brazil contestant, singer
9. Categories = 1994 births, living people, Brazilian singers, Big Brother Brasil
10. Review = not reviewed, I would suggest A7 or PROD. Alternatively - redirect to the Big Brother Brasil 20
11. Reason (for v) = Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, WP:SINGER. The sources mainly concentrate on her participation in BBB show, moreover they are not major news agencies or newspapers - only commercial TV networks. I haven't found any reliable trustworthy sources.
12. Sources -

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://extra.globo.com/tv-e-lazer/bbb/dupla-sertaneja-de-flayslane-aumenta-agenda-de-shows-busca-por-videos-com-bbb20-conhecidas-nivel-nacional-24318492.html	commercial TV network that airs the show subject is in	affiliated with the subject	Tells a lot about the subject, however here are parts that can't be used - quotes.	✘ No
https://areademulher.r7.com/celebridades/flay-flayslane/	comes from a big news agency	? haven't found their editorial policy, not sure	the whole article is dedicated to the subject	? Unknown
https://gshow.globo.com/realities/bbb/bbb20/casa-bbb/noticia/flayslane-e-a-13a-eliminada-do-bbb20-com-6300percent-dos-votos.ghtml	commercial TV network that airs the show subject is in	affiliated with the subject	the whole article is about her.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Less Unless (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Y very good. - see Here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

---

4.

1. Article = Jutahy Júnior
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = OK, CC BY 2.0
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = start
8. Short Descr = Brazilian politician
9. Categories = 1955 births, Brazilian political figures, politicians, living people (added to the article)
10. Review = reviewed, would also add a tag - more sources needed as there are many statements not backed by the refs.
11. Reason (for v) = Meets WP:POLITICIAN- was a minister and state deputy for a number of times
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/veja-como-deputados-votaram-no-impeachment-de-dilma-na-pec-241-na-reforma-trabalhista-e-na-denuncia-contra-temer.ghtml	the largest commercial TV network	offers official voting results, should be reliable	enough to back a statement made	✔ Yes
https://www.cartacapital.com.br/	weekly Brazilian newsmagazine	biased in some topics	the links leads to the main page with no information on the subject	✘ No
https://www.cartacapital.com.br/politica/como-votou-cada-deputado-sobre-a-denuncia-contra-temer/	weekly Brazilian newsmagazine	in this case reliable however known to be biased in some topics	enough to back the statement	✔ Yes
https://placar.eleicoes.uol.com.br/2018/1turno/ba/apuracao-no-estado/	large media company	offers official results of election, should be reliable	enough to back the statement	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

More refs should be added, I have found these: this, this, this/ There are more. Less Unless (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Y When we review an article, we need to check the content with the source, it the content claimed but not supported by source and we can find it then we add them in especially those content claimed meets the SNG such as he was the deputy of the state - see here Note we can always remove unsourced content in Wikipedia especially BLP articles. If you could find source to support content claimed inregardless you are a reviewer or just editor, then add the source (inline citation) in the page. You have done a good work here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

---

5.

1. Article = Valeer Peirsman
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = both images are own work under appropriate license
4. NPOV = generally ok, there are 2 places that I would rewrite (increasingly, more and more), but those violations are minor
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = stub
8. Short Descr = Belgian sculptor
9. Categories = 1932 births, 2020 deaths, Belgian sculptors
10. Review = reviewed
11. Reason (for v) = according to the information found, the subject is notable per WP:CREATIVE
12. Sources

The article needs more reliable sources, so I would either look for them, or take them from the nl Wikipedia here, or place the tag. Another option is moving the article to draft. Less Unless (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.waaskrant.be/nieuws/16414-beeldhouwer-valeer-peirsman-en-mia-de-decker-halve-eeuw-getrouwd-v15-16414	local media	? no indication - very small, about 260 views per day	dedicated to the subject	? Unknown
https://www.deslegte.com/valeer-peirsman-1000770/	a bookstore	? it's a bookstore with no information about the subject, hard to tell	listing of a book - subject's biography. This link should be replaced with a better ref, ISBN, for example	✘ No
https://www.hln.be/in-de-buurt/temse/beeldhouwer-valeer-peirsman-overlijdt-net-voor-88ste-verjaardag-temse-is-een-groot-openluchtmuseum-met-zijn-werk~a39b279c/?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FValeer_Peirsman	one of the biggest media in Belgium	the source is considered reliable.	the whole article is dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Less Unless (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. If you would find any ref from either Wikipedia sister sites (different languagues) or in the web, add them into the page to strengthen the notability requirement and WP:PROVEIT. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

---

6.

1. Article = Jaonli
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = ok, own work under acceptable license
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = stub
8. Short Descr = Garhwal Himalaya peak (added to the article)
9. Categories = Six-thousanders of the Himalayas, Mountains of Asia, Mountains of Uttarakhand
10. Review = reviewed
11. Reason (for v) = passed WP:GEOLAND - Named natural features
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/12196741001/Asia-IndiaGarhwal-Jaonli	an abstract from the journal - The American Alpine Journal	the journal is considered reliable in the sphere	enough useful facts to back the statements	✔ Yes
https://www.himalayanclub.org/hj/36/18/a-himalayan-adventure-jaonli/	information from the journal - The Himalayan journal - but written by the involved person - primary source. Can be added to External links	primary source	a lot of information about the subject	✘ No
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/city-techie-conquers-jaonli-peak-first-indian-to-do-so-in-25-years/476290/	Indian newspaper	considered reliable	the article is dedicated to the subject, even though there are quotes used	✔ Yes
https://indianexpress.com/article/books-and-literature/because-its-there-6224290/	Indian newspaper	considered reliable	book review (books covers the subject)	✔ Yes
https://www.outdoorjournal.com/focus-2/remembering-hari-dang-legend/	printed magazine about traveling	generally reliable	one fact	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Less Unless (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

---

7.

1. Article = Jakub Banaszek
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = no image
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = stub
8. Short Descr = Polish politician
9. Categories = 1991 births, 21-century polish politicians, living people
10. Review = not reviewed, would nominate per AfD with the rationale below.
11. Reason (for v) = the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. He is elected a president of the town (20,000 inhabitants), which is basically a major.
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://bip.warszawa.pl/NR/rdonlyres/96639515-FF7F-4CE1-A0BF-1ECB972E250C/1273695/Banaszek.pdf	official document (declaration) provided by the subject	data provided by the subject	includes a lot of information about the subject	✘ No
https://wybory2018.pkw.gov.pl/pl/geografia/066200#general_committee_stat	official webpage	official election's data however the link is a bit wrong - https://wybory2018.pkw.gov.pl/pl/geografia/066200#geo_mayor_stat	single mention of him being elected, can be used to back the statement	✘ No
https://lublin.wyborcza.pl/lublin/56,48724,24142700,chelm-wszystkie-obietnice-najmlodszego-prezydenta,,1.html?disableRedirects=true	Polish newspaper	the media is considered reliable	the article is dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.radiobonton.pl/wiadomosci/6505,prezydent-banaszek-wspieral-gowina-przy-zbieraniu-podpisow-dla-andrzeja-dudy	has no connection to the subject	? not sure as it's a radio station	the article has 1 trivial mention and quotes him so can't be used	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Less Unless (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

---

8.

1. Article = Sjoerdtsje Faber
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = no image
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = start
8. Short Descr = Dutch speed skater
9. Categories = 1915 births, 1998 deaths, Dutch female speed skaters
10. Review = reviewed
11. Reason (for v) = the subject is notable per WP:GNG
12. Sources

There are more sources that can be found on the subject if needed - I found some old articles, books. However it's hard to use the printscreens as I don't speak Dutch.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/vrouwenlexicon/lemmata/data/Faber	has no connection to the subject	Online Dictionary of Dutch Women, should be reliable, however it's tertiary	the entry is dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
https://sportgeschiedenis.nl/boeken/bijzondere-sportvrouwen-in-de-20-ste-eeuw/	not connected to the subject	? very small, created with wordpress, can't be sure	a paragraph, enough to back the statements	? Unknown
https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&identifier=ddd:010018876:mpeg21:a0232	an old newspaper issue	believed to be reliable	the article is dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
https://schaatsmuseum.nl/elfstedentocht/vrouwen/	museum, has no connection to the subject	as a museum can be considered reliable	short mention, but can be used to back the statement	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Less Unless (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

---

9.

1. Article = Cicely Waite-Smith
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = no image
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = stub
8. Short Descr = Jamaican playwright and writer
9. Categories = 1913 births, Playwrights, People from Jamaica
10. Review = reviewed
11. Reason (for v) = passes WP:GNG, however needs more references
12. Sources

I found some more references that can be used:[here], [here], [here].

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://books.google.com/books?id=7uH_4yAahYkC&pg=PA315&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false	a book written be several scholars not connected to the subject	generally reliable	talks about the subjects works and style, can be used to back the statements in the article	✔ Yes
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_History_of_Literature_in_the_Caribbean/7uH_4yAahYkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Cicely+Waite-Smith&pg=PA315&printsec=frontcover	the same source (see above), should be corrected	the same source (see above)	the same source (see above)	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=5o63AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT376&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false	not connected to the subject, issued by reputable printing house	generally reliable but as a tertiary source should be used with caution	a single mention, but can be used to back the fact the work belongs to her, however worldcat can back that as well	✘ No
https://www.caymancompass.com/2019/05/14/drama-students-set-for-big-stage/	one on the biggest media on cayman islands, not connected to the subject	is considered reliable	single trivial mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Less Unless (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Y. Do add in the source you found into the article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

---

10.

1. Article = Loïc Hennekinne
2. Article titles = ok
3. Images copyright = no image
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = start
8. Short Descr = French government official and diplomat
9. Categories = 1940 births, 2020 deaths, 21st-century French diplomats, Government officials
10. Review = reviewed
11. Reason (for v) = passes WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO (crit. 1 - honours), however I would look for more refs
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.pfg.fr/avis-de-deces/chercher-un-avis-de-deces/lo%C3%AFc-hennekinne-31371	funeral services	? I don't think this is the appropriate source, there can be better ones to back this statement	not significant but can be used to back the statement	✘ No
https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/enjeux-internationaux/loic-hennekinne-la-disparition-dun-grand-diplomate-1197619	French newspaper	considered reliable	the article is dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1962/03/07/six-eleves-de-l-institut-d-etudes-politiques-de-paris-gardes-a-vue_2345192_1819218.html	well-known reputable newspaper	known for fact-checking	can be used to back the statement that he was arrested	✘ No
https://www.lesechos.fr/1998/06/loic-hennekinne-793349	French newspaper	considered reliable	provides enough information to back some statements	✔ Yes
https://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presidentielles/primaires-gauche/2017/01/02/35005-20170102ARTFIG00149-integre-dans-l-equipe-de-montebourg-a-son-insu-guy-bedos-decline.php	reputable French newspaper	comes from a reputable source	short mention but can be used to back the statement	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Less Unless (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Y Do not ambassador doest not qualify WP:NPOL but could pass WP:GNG if significant covrage are found. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Creating article

Please create an article in via Wikipedia:Articles for creation where by the subject is notable, the content adhere to all the requirement and appropriate tagging/labeling/linkings as discussed from Assignment 1-8. Some notable subjects could be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/API Women, Jordan Espinosa, Vince Morales and Jordan Griffin notable MMA fighters - see their fight recored at Jordan Espinosa, Vince Morales, and Jordan Griffin. You can use Grant Dawson as the template.

My article Draft:Dorotea de Chopitea Less Unless (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Y Well-done. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Less Unless, Assignment 9 - last assignment before Final exam. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have finished the assignment. Please take a look. Thank you.Less Unless (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, See comments above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Notes

Assignment 1

• WP:AGF and not WP:BITE -We should always help the new editors who want to provide good contribution and want to improve Wikipedia even at time they might not know the the Wikipedia guidelines

• WP:Notability - In Wikipedia, notability means "worthy to be noted" - it is defined as a topic is "presumably" notable for stand-alone article or list if (1) it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject whee by the sources talk "directly" about the subject in depth and in length and not only passing mentioned and (2) it is not excluded under the What WP:Wikipedia is not policy.

• WP:GNG and SSN - both could be used when reviewing an article.

Assignment 2

• WP:Sources - Sources needed are significant coverage of published Independent / WP:SECONDARY , reliable sources to verify the content claimed where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not only passing mentioned.

Assignment 3

• WP:Content Policy - Article needs to adhere to Wikipedia Content Policy in article article title, WP:biographies of living person, image and text (Wikipedia:Image use policy and WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPOV, verifiability

• WP:COPYVIO - Public domain and note proper nouns are not Copyvio

• Wikipedia:Image use policy - check the original source

Assignment 4

• WP:CSD - go through the criteria

• WP:COI / WP:PAID - Self-disclosure by COI/PAID editors is one of the many ways we find out that they are COI/PAID. The different between a COI say an COI editor write about themselves, or friends is that written prose is not that perfect as compared that to a professional writers' (PAID editor). Secondly, if the article is about a company, the prose of the article is written more like a businesslike (business writing). Thirdly, professional paid editor would provide neat citations and only take one or 2 edits to create the article. In addition, professional PAID editors would create multiple different companies article that normal COI editors would not. Do note PAID is a subset of COI and an COI would also a PAID editor such as a small business owner write about their company or a rapper write about their own article in Wikipedia

• G11 (promo) - What constitute a G11? At times it is hard to define. Although if a article is blantantly promote or advertise about the subject then it is a G11. Sometimes, the it is a little subtle and that would be a judgement call. As a rule of thumb, if article about an entertainers (actor/singer/DJ/artist and etc) in dept of how hard they work, how motivated they are, using all the puffery/flowery languages and especially the subject does not meet notability guidelines. For a corporation, we would see they list down all they product/services, their directors/key person in the company, they mission, their client, they are the influencer in their industrial, all the words/phrased to enhance/market the company and no substantial info that is supported by independent reliable sources. If you look at the this version of Zapp Scooters which you tagged G11, I have to agree with the editor who removed the tag that it is not a G11 and unsourced info can be removed.

• G12 (copyvio) - Copyright violation addresses the use of original expression without permission of the holder which is a violation of laws even the credit is given to the source. For articles, the Copyright Law gives the copyright protection to the “original works of authorship fixed in in a tangible medium of expression” in the newspaper, magazine and freelance article at the moment of their creation, for the life of the creator plus 70 years after, and 95 years for corporation publication or 120 years from date of creation, whichever is shorter.

• A7, A9 and A11 - "Claimed of signification" - As long as the content states a claim of significant in regardless there is no source provided or the claim might not be true, then A7/A9/A11 does NOT apply. Example: "John Smiths is the US senator who lives in Texas" or " Let's Jump, Let's Dance is ranked #2 in Billboard chart in October 2019" or "DM7-29 is a U.S. self-propelled artillery gun developed in 2010 capable hitting the target of 500 miles" - all these 3 examples do claim of significant and some of them might not even be true and there have no source, but they do not qualify for A7/A9/A11. The option is either to PROP them or to do a WP:BEFORE or to do a R2, for potential subject, if it has no source or only primary source provided and if they fails the WP:BEFORE then AfD them. A7 would be something like "John Smiths is my high school teacher, who have a lot of knowledge of algebra" or "The Minnesota Valhalla is the heavy metal band from Minnesota. The band makes up of my brother, Alan, my little sister, Mary and two of my mates, Ken and Jesus. We practice every Monday and Friday at our home garage".

Assignment 5

• WP:NPPDRAFT - do so for articles have no sources or sources that are primary/not independent, such as from their home page, user generated sites or sport databases, club home page for sportspersons. If you would find 3 independent, reliable sources to support the notability of the subject, then please do so and add the source in the article and mark review.

• PROD - (1) When it does not fall under CSD but not controversial deletion with the notion that it will be deleted if the article is AfDed. (2) We can only PROD the article once thus do check the history page to make sure the article has not been PROD before. (3) If the PROD is removed, do not replace it (4) PROD would last for 7 day start from the date of the nomination and will be either deleted or removed of the tag by an uninvolved admin who decides the outcome of the nomination.

• BLPROD - (1) nominated if only there is no source for article about a living person. (2) BLPPROD can be removed only an reliable is added. (3) Even item 2 has been performed but editor still think it is should be deleted under PROD (1) criteria then a PROD can be tag. (3) if PROD (1) is not applicable and editor could nominate the article for AfD if the subject is not notable.

• AfD - Nominated articles to AfD if the subject is not notable or fall under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. A WP:BEFORE should be done prior the nominated. If the article states the nationality of the subject and a local name is provided, do search the local name in said country in Google to look for sources if any (2) Reason / justification based on notability guidelines should be address when nominate AfD or participate in a AfD. (3) Do not AfD if the sources are provided but you can locate/view them due to paywall, print book/article to determined the content claimed as per sources. (4) Request paywall article /print book from WP:RX to view the content (make sure you have you email provided in your preferences page, so the RX editors could send you the article via email). (4) You might want to reconsider to AfD an article if the sources of the article would be found mostly in other languages besides English or your languages you comprehend. For example if an article is about a Russian poet or sportman or actors / singer but the subject has not reach worldwide notability/popularity where by most source could not be found in their country reliable newspapers or books other languages but English. I dont often participate/vote for Indian actors as I dont read any Indian languages.

Assignment 6

• Taggaing - sue scripts/tools to tag appropiate cat/wikiproject/subsort/issues in the their respectively fields.

Assignment 7

• Many ways to communicate with the editors - focus on the subject not the ediots. Be civil and helpful always.

Assignment 8

• Tools - as per listed

Assignment 9

• Reviewing article - Apply what have learnt from Assignment 1-8 when reviewing article.

• Paywall site: If the source is from a paywall site, then see help from WP:RX and you need to forward me the print article once WP:RX send it to you via email.

• Lack of sources : If there is lack of sources, we need to do a WP:BEFORE, then we and add in the sources (at least 3 independent, reliable sources in the article) if we going to mark review.

• Print sources: I do suggest to avoid any print sources for they are hard to located.

• Digital sources of foreign languages: If the sources are digital and in foreign languages, then get it translated.

• Filtering: If you are going to AfD, or PROD then you need to provide reasons of why you are doing do. I would like you to work on different outcomes (some review, some nominated AfD or PROD); however, you still need to do the rest of the requirement such as tagging cats, Wiki Project, subsort (if it is a sub class), send personal messages and etc.

• Work on subject you are familiar with

• For any article without source and you would like to review it and accept the article (meet notability requirements) then you need to find the independent sources (at least 3) which would support the content claimed then place inline citation.

• If you have a hard time to find (say the sources most probably in foreign languages) and it is a potential article, then do a R2.

• For foreign language sources, use google translate, I do that all the time.

• If there is a native name provided in the article, and you know which country the subject is from, then google the native name with the associate country in google search such as a Russian subject then Google search on "native name.ru".

• When reviewing, first pls check if the article fit CSD criteria (do remember to check copyvio), then if the article has no source - do a R2 (I usualy do a R2 for potential article) or tag BLPPROD if it is a BLP or search for the source (I always search for source if I know the subject is notable and add the sources it). For sourced articles, check sources against content claimed. If meet notability guidelines (at least 3 independent, reliable sources needed and check SSN guidelines), then mark review. If the article fails the notability guidelines, then do a PROD if you think if send to AfD will be a definitely delete or nominate AfD for discussion, if you think a discussion should take place.

• Always check all the sources. Any articles that you not sure if it meets notability guidelines, then left them to other patroller.

• When reviewing, make sure take your time - always quality over quantity.

• Creating article - make sure the subject is notable with significant coverage of published Independent / WP:SECONDARY , reliable sources to verify the content claimed where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not only passing mentioned.

---

Less Unless, See note above. Let me know if you have any questions prior I post the final exam questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you for the review, please do post the exam questions. I will take some time to go through the policies once again. If you could also give me some tips - what do you think are my weakest sides at the moment, so I could concentrate more on them. I see that the sources might be one of them, but I'd appreciate your opinion. Thank you! Less Unless (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Good day. You are doing very well in this program with only one little note on "independent source vs dependent sources". See not below:

Sources could be used/demonstrated for notability are those "independent" from the subject ( another words, the sources can NOT be associated/affiliated/connected with the subject). Any sources that are dependent are sources related/associated with the subject such as press releases, webpages created by the subject of an article, self published sources, sponsored articles and videos, original research, subject official web site, marketing material associated with subject, subject's social media sites, club/statistical info/ associated with the subject, diaries/letters of the subject and etc for the reason that the info (sources) are provided/obtain from the subject/who associated with the subject as such the info can not be "independently' verify and no independent editorial work included. To say that, we can use dependent sources sparingly in Wikipedia but it can NOT be used to pass the notability guidelines requirements. Note on notability : Subject need to be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines where by the content need to be support by significant coverage of independent, reliable sources for verification where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not merely passing mentioned. Content also need to adhere to neutral point of view , free of copyright violation and WP:promotion /any form of vandalism. Lastly, please note that the program does need you to get 90% of the CSD question right. So if you are not sure of the CSD you woul like to nominate, then pls leave them and go for those you are extremely sure that you get the CSD right. Hope the above help. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Final Exam

Part 1

1. In your own words, why and how do communicate with the editor and why it is important to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE them?

• Answer: Communication with all the editors – including IP users should be civil and polite – treat others as you want to be treated is a good rule of thumb. Assuming good faith is important as most of the editors come here to enhance Wikipedia and we encourage them to be bold. Being bold sometimes leads to mistakes, but most of the time it's due to the lack of knowledge about inner standards. It's important to avoid attacks as it leads to controversial situation, general unpleasant atmosphere and makes possibly good editors leave. To resolve any arising issue there is a set of instruments such as dispute resolutions, consensus, talk pages for discussion etc. Less Unless (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

2. What kind of sources are needed to demonstrate/contribute the notability of the subject? and hwy it is important?

• Answer: Wikipedia as a tertiary source only compiles the information. All the content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable so everyone could check where the information is coming from. Therefore there are some requirements to the sources. To demonstrate the notability of the subject it has to be significantly covered by independent reliable sources. Independent means not connected to the subject, reliable means the source has a history of fact checking and significant coverage means the sources talk about the subject in depth and in length, not just a trivial mention. Less Unless (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

3.What constitutes a [WP:COPYVIO]? and why it is not a copyvio even the texts are identical the same as per sources?

• Answer: Copyright violation means using the exact wording presented in the sources that are non fare use, not public domain or without permission or copyright holder, also close paraphrasing. For images – they should be licensed under one of the Wikimedia Foundation licenses. All copyright violations are governed by United States copyright laws, but there's a list of copyright laws by other countries that are encouraged to be taken into account.

There are several cases which allow using the exact text, namely: when it's in public domain when used as a quote with a supporting reference when permission is granted by the copyright holder under a necessary License when the text or image is under certain Creative Commons license Less Unless (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

4. What should we do when we encounter WP:COPYVIO article and what should we place on the COPYVIO editor's talk page?

• Answer: If the large part of the article is copyvio we CSD (G12) it. If only a small part violates copyvio we can remove the violation indicating in the summary the source, and request REVDEL. Also it's necessary to place a tag to the article's talk page notifying we have removed the content and where it comes from.

It's also important to warn the user by placing a template on their talk page (Twinkle does it automatically). If you for some reason can't do any of the above mentioned, you can report the case to the Copyright problems noticeboard. Less Unless (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

5. What should we do when we encounter WP:PAID article and what should we place on the COPYVIO editor's talk page?

• Answer: Paid editing should be disclosed. The PAID editor should place a tag on their talk page and on the article's talk page. If such an editor fails or refuses to disclose the required information (client, employer, affiliation), they are prohibited from editing.

If the PAID article is a blatant promotion, the subject is not notable etc it can be CSDed (applicable criteria). The article can also be tagged (reasonably) with coi, pnov, advert tags. Another option is moving a page to draft. When we encounter PAID article with no disclosure, it's important to place a {{subst:Uw-coi}} tag on the editors talk page and a COI tag on the article. The violation of these requirements may be reported to the ANI, the COIN or via email, but it's important not to reveal editors private information. Less Unless (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Y. Note: in regardless how many articles a known paid editor has created, when we encoutor a new page created by the paid editor, we should, without exception, move the page to draft space so they would be review by AfC reviewer and then by NPP reviewer prior it is published on the Wikipedia main space. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

6. When do we nominated a page for WP:G12 and when do we WP:REVDEL the COPYVIO text?

• Answer: G12 is used when a large amount of article constitutes copyvio. This includes close paraphrasing and anything more than 4 exact consecutive words. REVDEL is used only when a small amount is copyvio and the article can be saved by removing the revision which included copyvio. We tag revdel so admin would remove the copyvio content and hide the edits in article history page. Less Unless (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Y good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

7. What constitute an article is a WP:PROMO page? and what should do do when we encounter one?

• Answer: PROMO means that the article's main purpose is to promote the subject. Such articles are usually written like an advertisement, including a lot of puffery, non-npov language. Very often the subject's of such articles fail the WP:GNG. Sometimes PROMO can be more subtle, but it still resembles in the way the article is written (too much information about the products, for example, etc.). Very often such claims are not supported by IRS.

When we encounter entirely promotional page we always CSD it per G11. If the subject is notable and the sources are reliable, the npov tag should be placed (or you can remove promotional language on your own). If the subject looks notable, but there are not enough reliable sources, the article can be moved to draft, indicating the npov issues as well.

In case the creator has COI or is PAID we should follow the above described (question 5) procedures. Less Unless (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Y in regardless the subject is notable or not, if the page is written like a promo then G11 it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

8. Why do we tag a page? What are the normal tags we place in an article

• Answer: We tag a page to indicate of certain issues that need to be addressed. For the editors tags indicate certain problems that need to be corrected and for the readers - warn them about problematic content. However if the issue can be easily corrected, it's highly encouraged to do so, rather than place a tag. The most common tags we place in an atticle are notability related – where the article needs more sources to prove the notability, content related – such as npov, promo, coi etc. style-related – such as clean up, citation formatting, structure, copy editing or maintenance related. Also we use tags to inform that an article is proposed for deletion.Less Unless (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

9. When do we WP:R2 a page?

• Answer: We R2 articles (move them to the draftspace) to give them a chance to be better developed to comply with Wikipedia policies. The subject however, has to be of potential notability, especially this applies to unsourced WP:BLP articles. There should be no sources at all or primary/non-independent sources. Less Unless (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Y use R2 sparingly. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

10. When do we WP:PROD a page?

• Answer: We PROD a page if it doesn't pass the notability guidelines (both general and specific), doesn't meet any of CSD criteria and we believe the deletion would not be controversial - noone will object. If the tag survives 7 days and a reviewing administrator agrees - it will be deleted. If someone objects to PROD it can't be used anymore. Less Unless (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

11. When do we WP:BLPPROD a page?

• Answer: We BLPPROD a page if it's a biography of a living person and has no sources at all. If there are links in External links section or anywhere else – we can't use BLPPROD. The tag can only be removed when at least one proper source is added. Less Unless (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

12. When do we WP:AfD a page?

• Answer: We nominate a page for deletion via AfD when the subject fails Wikipedia notability guidelines - general and specific, but doesn't meet CSD, PROD or BLPBROD. Before nomination it's important to do a WP:BEFORE. Less Unless (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Y Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

13. Why it is important to WP:CSD a page when the article fit the CSD criteria?

• Answer: Some articles are inappropriate for Wikipedia as they may violate important guidelines and policies, such as copyright, notability, npov, privacy reasons etc. CSD are strict criteria under which the articles can be deleted without discussion and consensus – speedily. So it's important to CSD such articles to avoid possible legal issues (if it's a copyvio) and to reduce the time on deletion discussions (as such articles have no chance to survive the discussion). But it's important to apply CSD properly.Less Unless (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

14. When do we decide to WP:R2 / WP:PROD / WP:BLPPROD a page when the article has no source in it?

• Answer:

We use R2 if the article has potential to be developed into a proper one, especially if it's biography of living people (without any sources provided or the sources are primary). However this should be used sparingly.

We use PROD if the article doesn't qualify for CSD, but the deletion would be uncontroversial. The article can be PRODed only once, if the tag is removed it can be proposed for deletion via AfD process.

We use BLPPROD if it's an article about a living person that has absolutely no sources. The tag can only be removed when at least one proper source is added. Less Unless (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

15. In your own words, list down 5 things you haven learnt from observing and participating in AfD.

• Answer i: It crucial to do WP:BEFORE thoroughly as there is a big chance you don't see the whole picture and might be wrong with your nomination or your vote. Less Unless (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: It's OK to change your opinion as the result of discussion or withdraw your nomination. Everyone can be wrong. Less Unless (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: Different people have access to different sources and knowledge. So sometimes what you fail to find – others succeed. Which to me means AfD can be a good source for article enhancement. Less Unless (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Especially sources from books, subscribe magazines, different languages and etc.. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: AfD discussion should not be a battle field – but a place where different people can contribute to each other's knowledge. So it's important not to take the votes personally but appreciate other opinions to have a better understanding of the situation in whole. Less Unless (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Y we comment on the article/requirements but not the editors - always be WP:CIVIL. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: To me personally it's better to avoid voting if you are completely unfamiliar with the field. It's hard to have an opinion about something you know absolutely nothing about. Less Unless (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Y Note: irregardless you are familiar with the subject, AfD vote/discussion should be based on Wikipedia notability guidelines first. There are times, other factor comes in play and they would be voiced in the Afd. I also dont usually place by vote about an article where I am not familiar with the subject. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Part 2

Pls read WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD 11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and hist diff/links

Answer i: G11 Toto XIV Tour diff - here Less Unless (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: John R. Price diff - here Less Unless (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: C.U.B.Y diff - here Less Unless (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: La vida scholars diff here Less Unless (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: Blame the hero diff here Less Unless (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Part 3

Pls read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and provide 5 successful CSD 12 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and hist diff and I will check them at your CSD log. You can use Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool to check if an article is in violation of COPYVIO.

Answer i: California (band) Diff here Less Unless (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: Black 45 King Diff here Less Unless (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: Draft:American College of Lifestyle Medicine Diff here Less Unless (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Y. The page (name of the draft article) has been recreated and I have check as per today no copyvio on this new draft page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: The Pangti Story DIff (history)here. The article was nominated because the large chunk of the content was a copyvio. However the creator quickly removed the violating content and my tag and I requested revdel afterwards. Less Unless (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v:Draft:CHALK Salon Diff here. I have nominated both G11 and G12 as it falls under both categories, but the article was entirely copied from the mentioned sources. Less Unless (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Part 4

Pls read and A1-A11 and R2 at WP:CSD and and provide 5 successful "Article CSD" articles (with at least two of them are CSD A7) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Pls provide the article names and hist diff.

Answer i: A7 Manish Kumar Goswami Diff here Less Unless (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: A3 Professional basketball player Kamal Ramos Diff here Less Unless (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: A7 Harnarains Diff here Less Unless (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: A7 Tolkien Gateway Diff here Less Unless (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: A7 Joseph Sumaili diff - here Less Unless (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Part 5

1. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons.

Answer i: Mariah Srygler. WP:BEFORE hasn't shown any IRS, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.

Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: Suhag Chooda WP:BEFORE has shown no sources to prove the subjects notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Diff - here Less Unless (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

2. Nominate 1 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons.

Answer i: Joseph Lee Shomberg - the article is a biography of a living person with no sources at all. Less Unless (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

N The first we need to check when reviewing an article is to check if the article fitted the CSD criteria especially (1) if the article violet copyvio, (2) promotional (3) vandalism (like attack page) before tagging PROPS BLPROD, R2 or AfD. The article was deleted on the same day of your tag under copyvio violation (G12) - see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

3. Pls read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT and provide 2 successful WP:R2 from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Pls provide the article names and hist diff.

Answer i: Saint Anthony cave (Chernihiv) Diff here Less Unless (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Y even though admin stated it is not a redirect comment, your tag was correct as per the version. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: National Museum of Lubumbashi Diff here Less Unless (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless The history log of this page does not record your edit and the his diff you provided here is not about the page. I believe you provide the wrong page and wrong hist diff. Kindly provide another answer. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk)

Part 6

1. Participate in 5 WP:AFD where by you are the first voter of the discussion. Please provide you reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.

Answer i: Tan Ning (badminton) AfD here. The subject fails WP:NBADLess Unless (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Y not doubt your AfD vote was correct but you are not the first voter - see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: 360 Mall - Afd here. The article reads more like advert to me. The subject fails WP:NBUILD as there's no significant reliable coverage. Less Unless (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: Neehar Raina - Afd here

I failed to find any reliable sources apart from a couple mentioning the inclusion controversy. Seems like an WP:1E, but the coverage wasn't widespread either. Fails WP:GNG Less Unless (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: Antikarisma - Afd here

The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The sources provided in the article don't cover the subject in depth, one of the links is dead, 2 - cover their Sweden festival gig (trivial mentions). No other sources found. Less Unless (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Y As per this version, tagging of AfD, your assessment was correct. However, since the the founder (with source) has a page in Wikipedia, it was redirect. - see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: FOMO Tour - Afd here

The bands article PrettyMuch mentions these tours and they don't have enough significant coverage for standalone articles. Moreover - there were 0 views from the 2017. The last month there were 5 only Less Unless (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Part 7

Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanation of your nomination.

Answer i: Tonmoy Tansen, AfD here . I have found no significant coverage of him. There are many mentions but all of them are trivial. Fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Great work. I am impress with your analysis of each source and justification based on notability criteria. Well-done indeed! Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: Kathleen Tan, here] The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. I haven't found any IRS. Less Unless (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: Tarila Thompson here Although there are several articles that seem to cover the subject in depth, those don't look major or reliable. Not active as for now, only several movies, the roles were minor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Less Unless (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. As per your tagging version this - and I have done a brief BEFORE on EN langue on the net, I am a little surprise the discussion was closed a keep. I checked through all all the sources and do agreed many of the intestinal reliable source and some non independence sources and in addition, the mentioned of him being an actor or producer who trivially mentioned. I am not sure would there be other IRS sources in other languages written about him but I do know is that some of the voter inregardless if they are new to AfD or have been involved in AfD for awhile do not really understand the notability requirements. I gave your answer a yellow tick as I agreed with you finding and justification; however,the AfD was voted a keep. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: Bernardo Urbina Discussion here

Although there are refs from reliable sources, it seems to be an WP:1E case with no other notability guidelines met (no more mentions in reliable sources rather than about him using debris to create furniture). Moreover, the article reads very promotional. Less Unless (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: Otto von Wernherr here The subject fails WP:GNG. I have found no mentions in reliable sources, only Madonna's fansites.Less Unless (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Part 8

Pls list 10 things needs to be considered/done when reviewing a page.'

• Answer i: The first thing is to make sure the article was created at least 15 minutes before and there's no active use at the moment – to avoid misunderstandings.

Y. I would recommand to wait for at least an hour or two before tagging AfD as many editors still developing the article in piecemeals, especially the new editors who are still not familiar in many Wikipedia markup, or still looking for sources. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: It's very important to do an in-depth analysis to make sure your decisions as a reviewer are correct (proper CSD nominations, deletion discussions, GNG, etc). So it's sensible to check the article previous log (if it existed before and was deleted, what were the reasons. etc), the creator and their user page, also previous contributions (to make sure there's no coi).

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: Check if the article falls under any of the CSD and if so – nominate it (also Revdel in case of partial copyvio.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: If the article doesn't fall under CSD but looks like a candidate for deletion (fails notability) – you can Merge, Redirect, PROD, BLPPROD or AfD it.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: If the article's subject looks notable but there's not enough sources or information provided, the article can be moved to draft via R2 or a simple move to be developed.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer vi: If the article has incorrect title it can be changed via move or requested moves.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer vii: If the article has some issues – lack of sources, categories, style issues, etc you can place a tag informing about them. However it's better to fix what you can rather than overtag the article.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer viii: It's important to add the article to the Wikiprojects it may be of interest to and if it's a stub - add a stub tag - to attract attention of the editors who may improve the article.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer xi: If your lack of knowledge on the subject may hinder you from performng a high-quality patrolling, it's better to skip the article.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Answer x: It's very helpful to follow the NPP flowchart and concentrate on the quality rather than quantity. Less Unless (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Part 9

Pls follow the NPP flowchart and read all the reading material provide from Assignment and tools 1-8 and answer the questions below. Please pick 5 articles that meet the notability guidelines (no PROD/BLPPROD/R2/AfD/CSD) from the new pages from Special:NewPagesFeed and follow the NPP flowchart and provide the appropriate answer below (pls place N/A if not applicable). Pick articles that have 3-4 sources for the exercises below. (pls provide link and hist diff)

1

1.

1. Article = Kevin Shea (jockey)
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = NA
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = start
8. Short Descr = South African horse racing jockey
9. Categories = 1964 births, living people, South African jockeys
10. Review = reviewed
11. Reason (for 10) = the subject passes WP:GNG, WP:NHORSERACING
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sportingpost.co.za/profile/warren-lenferna-kevin-shea-profile/	the source has no connection to the subject	the source is specialized on horses and horse racing, founded in 1994, should be reliable in the field	yes, the article provides a lot of details about the subject's career	✔ Yes
https://www.sportingpost.co.za/2015/06/kevin-shea-retires-sa-racings-farewell-to-top-jock/	the source has no connection to the subject	the source specializes in horses and horse racing, founded in 1994, should be reliable in the field	yes, the article provides a lot of details about the subject's career	✔ Yes
https://www.thoroughbrednews.com.au/news/story/top-jockey-kevin-shea-calls-time-on-career-81344?section=International	the source has no connection to the subject	the webpage itself is not big and reliable, but the article is a repost dorm the Racing Post - which is a pretty big media in thee sphere	yes, the article has in depth coverage	✔ Yes
https://www.summerhill.co.za/blog/2008/10/1/international-jockeys-challenge-team-announced.html	? seems to have no connection to the subject, but as a stud could have had connection to him	this is a private studs facility, not media, I wouldn't call it reliable	there are several facts, generally can be used to back the statements	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The last source is a repost from a bigger more reliable media, can be replaced and used. Less Unless (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

2

2.

1. Article = Lindsay Hardy
2. Article titles = ok
3. Images copyright = no image
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = I would say yes, as the article is basically identical to this one: https://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/page/A45432 - very close paraphrasing, the structure is also copied
7. Article Class = stub
8. Short Descr = Australian novelist, playwright and screenwriter
9. Categories = 1914 births, 1994 deaths, Australian screenwriters, Australian male novelists
10. Review = not
11. Reason (for 10) = because of the copyvio issue. To be saved, the article needs to be completely rewritten.
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/page/A45432	has no connection to the subject	webpage is a collaboration of university and several research institutions	the article is dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=sXSdDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT2&lpg=PT2&dq=Weaver,+Tom+(2014).+The+Horror+Hits+of+Richard+Gordon&source=bl&ots=Q04j9-9hke&sig=ACfU3U1iWfgkaBPKQbmapfbTB63cjscTFA&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZoLbQoIzqAhWCp4sKHXoxD5cQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Hardy&f=false	direct speech of a person who was connected to the subject	a published book	single mention	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&hl=uk&id=Yyqc0Qa6b60C&q=Hardy#v=snippet&q=Hardy&f=false	has no connection to the subject	a published book	but can back the statement	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have found several other sources here and here Less Unless (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Y well-done.I am not sure which version of copyvio you checked. I run Earwing copyvio and found "radio scripts in the late 1940s, first in Melbourne for Donovan Joyce, and then from 1950 in Sydney with Grace Gibson." was copyvio. (note: proper nouns which they are NOT violation of copyvio) since it is just a sentence we could tag WP:REVDEL. If we find additional sources to support the content claimed especially to strengthen/meet the notability guidelines (I have done that all the time to save the article from AfD), then add them in the article. Same as before we tag AfD or vote in AfD discussion, when we find sources when we do a WP:BEFORE the we add the source (citation) into the page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

3

3.

1. Article = Adan Dullo Fatuma
2. Article titles = ok
3. Images copyright = no
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = stub
8. Short Descr = Kenyan politician
9. Categories = Living people, Kenyan politicians, Women politicians, Members of the Senate of Kenya
10. Review = yes
11. Reason (for 10) = notable per WP:POLITICIAN
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://www.parliament.go.ke/the-senate/sen-adan-dullo-fatuma				✔ Yes
https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001251225/fatuma-dullo-first-woman-senator-elect-from-northern-kenya	has no connection to the subject	big newspaper	the article is dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.kbc.co.ke/poghisio-elected-senate-majority-leader-to-replace-murkomen/	has no connection to the subject	state corporation	short mention but can be used to support the fact	✘ No
https://www.nation.co.ke/news/politics/Poghisio-replaces-Murkomen-in-Senate-leadership/3126390-5549038-tnrp72/index.html	has no connection to the subject	big newspaper	short mention, can be used to support the statement.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The last 2 sources contain the same information, so one of them can be removed. Two more refs found that have more information on birth date ans awards: this and this. Less Unless (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Y Add them sources into the article. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

4

4.

1. Article = Robert J. Devlin, Jr.
2. Article titles = ok
3. Images copyright = no image
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indication
6. COPYVIO = no
7. Article Class = start
8. Short Descr = American judge from Connecticut
9. Categories = 20th-century American judges, Living people, Judges of the Connecticut Appellate Court
10. Review = yes
11. Reason (for 10) = notable per WP:JUDGE
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/appJudge_Devlin.htm	the subject works for the judicial branch	as a governmental page it can be concidered reliable	the article talks about the subject	✘ No
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-robert-devlin-nominated-for-appellate-court-0426-20190425-nxmns2oclnemhoyw3f5s62ehea-story.html	has no connection to the subject	a newspaper known for fact checking	dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
https://ctmirror.org/2019/04/25/lamont-nominates-robert-devlin-to-appellate-court/	has no connection to the subject	website known for fact checking	the article is dedicated to the subject	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The third source can be removed as it duplicates the second. I have found more refs: thisand this. Less Unless (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Y Well-done for finding more sources. Add them sources into the article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

5

5.

1. Article = Hanna Simon
2. Article titles = ok
3. Images copyright = no image
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = no indocation
6. COPYVIO = not
7. Article Class = stub
8. Short Descr = Eritrean diplomat
9. Categories = living people, ambassadors of Eritrea, Women ambassadors, Eritrean people
10. Review = yes, but more sources have to be added instead of the primary
11. Reason (for 10) = passes [WP:GNG]], WP:DIPLOMAT
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.pambazuka.org/human-security/interview-her-excellency-hanna-simon-ambassador-republic-eritrea-france	it's primary source as it's an interview	seems to be a reliable source according to the wikipedia article Pambazuka News	the article is fully dedicated to the subject	✘ No
https://www.euclid.int/faculty/hanna-simon.pdf	issued be the institution the subject is working for	? hard to check	the whole article is dedicated to the subject	✘ No
https://www.geeskaafrika.com/4989/eritrea-female-ambassador-hanna-presents-credentials-to-unesco-in-france/	has no connection to the subject	the oldest free independent source in the region - should be reliable	the article talks about the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.tesfanews.net/ambassador-hanna-simons-speech-at-the-39th-unesco-general-conference/	it's a primary source as there's direct speech	? hard to check, seems to be relible	it's the subject's speech	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have found many other sources this, this - can be used partly, this - p 98, this, this, this - to support 1 fact.Less Unless (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Y Note: Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability is a Wikipedia essay and not the SNG Notability. Ambassadors are not covered in WP:NPOL but would be accepted under WP:GNG. Good work on looking for more sources. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Part 10

Creating article

Please create an article in via Wikipedia:Articles for creation where by the subject is notable, the content adhere to all the requirement and appropriate tagging/labeling/linking as discussed from Assignment 1-8. Some notable subjects could be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/API Women.

Answer: Draft:Maria Dahl Less Unless (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Y. I could not check on the sources as per content claimed as they are in book version and I go by WorldCat Identities. Very well written article indeed. Thank you for your contribution.12:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Less Unless, See above Final exam questions. Since there are a lot of questions, I will review them once you have partially finished answering the questions. All the best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, hello! I have answered a bigger part of the questions, there are still some CSDs and reviewes to go. I have about 80% of the CSD right at the moment - even more if we count the recreated articles or some cases where the tag was removed by the creator, or the copyvio was quickly removed and the CSD was declined. Can you please indicate is it 80% or 90%, as you have mentioned 80% before. Thank you alot! Less Unless (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, My appologies. I dont remember I received a notification of your above message. The answer is 90%. You have only the final exam to work on, kindly complete them for finish the program. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Good day. I will start review some of the answers you provided now instead wait until all the questions are answered as it would take a lot of time to work through/review them all. Let me know if that is ok with you. Stay safe Less Unless and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Hello! Of course I'm ok with that) Moreover the previous comment about me having answered to the bigger part of the question had the same intention as you had mentioned above that it would be easier for you to check the answers partially. I am again having a delay with G12 - still 2 to go, all the rest are ready for you. Best, Less Unless (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, Thank you for letting me know. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have finished G12 as well meaning I'm finally done. Best, Less Unless (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: hello! I hope you are safe and everything's fine. I just wondered maybe you haven't got the notification as I haven't heard from you for a while. If it's the case, then I would like to let you know that I have completed all the assignments. Best, Less Unless (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, G'day. Thanks for letting me know. Will review the final exam in next few days. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Completion

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the New pages patrol School on your successful completion of my NPPSCHOOL instruction! You have now graduated from the New pages patrol School and completed your final exam with 97.5%. Well done!

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).

{{User NPPSCHOOL/Graduate|graduate}}:

This user is an NPP SCHOOL graduate.

@Less Unless: It's been a real pleasure to work with you over the past six months. I am truly impressed with your work, the applications of the guidelines and explanations of your justifications. I hope you gained something from this course, and if you have any questions, do drop a message on my talk page. Best of luck, and thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this role. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Dear Cassiopeia! I am truly grateful for your guidance and patience! I have gained so much and I am happy you were helping me all along this way. I am always ready to help in case you need anything. Thank you so much! Hugs!Less Unless (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Less Unless:, Good day. Thank you for offering to help if I need you and I will take it as the rain check. I encourage you to apply for NPP reviewer role - see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer and just info them you have completed the NPPSCHOOL program and mentioned my name in case for verification for I truly believe it would of a great help to NPP. The reviewer work is entirely voluntary so you could review as many or as few as you like whenever you have a little spare time. (Note AfC (Artical for Creation do share similar guidelines but the process and way to review the article is very different, if you want to know more, then let me know) Again, it was my pleasure to train you for not only you work was excellent but also a joy to work with you. Stay safe Less Unless and best. Cassiopeia^(talk)

@Cassiopeia: I will definitely apply! I was away for a week now I am getting back to almost every day wiki work :)If I am granted the rights, I will start reviewing articles and if everything goes well, I will ask your guidance on AfC process as well. BEst, Less Unless (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Less Unless:, Ok no worries, pop by my talk page anytime. One last thing on reviewing article, if you are not familiar or not sure about the subject/content, skip it and don review it. Pick and choose the article (subject/content/field) what you know and confident to review and quality over quantity always. Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

---