User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Atsme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

User:Ovinus

Latest comment: 2 years ago74 comments2 people in discussion

Passed July 27, 2022

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Notability in a nutshell

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

Welcome New Trainee!

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

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.
Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

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

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

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

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 12:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Notability (Pt. 1)

Notability

(Regarding the HTML comment above: I will say I have zero interest in being an administrator!) The notability of a topic is a key factor in its suitability for its own Wikipedia article or list. Notability simply means that a topic has attracted sufficient attention as measured through reliable and independent sources. The notability standard's purpose is to ensure that Wikipedia does not contain an indiscriminate catalog of every possible topic out there; such a collection would violate core Wikipedia principles, in particular the first pillar, which states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It also helps ensure that editors can find verifiable information for the article. That a topic is notable still does not guarantee that it deserves a stand-alone article: Editors have the discretion to merge articles to, say, place topics in better context; to remove otherwise-notable articles which violate what Wikipedia is not (say, detailed instructions on cooking a ragoust); to remove pages which violate the neutral point of view policy because they are restricted to one side of a controversial argument; and even to split notable, but overly long, lists into sublists, for accessibility. Notability, however, is a requisite for a stand-alone article to exist.

Once achieved, notability is, in general, forever. Unless consensus changes to exclude certain types of articles, or to restrict SNGs which were used to get around the GNG, if a topic is notable, it will be notable one hundred years from now. In the other direction, just because a source is old, or locked up in dusty libraries, does not mean that it cannot contribute to notability. But a dearth of notability is not forever; a formerly non-notable Peter the anteater may rise to fame as a champion of anteater rights and earn his own article if he meets the GNG. And no amount of editing can change notability; if a subject is not notable to begin with, fluffing it up with background information and questionable sources does not help.

Of course, editors will disagree on what information is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, depending on their interests and philosophy. Thus, guidelines established through (often excruciating) site-wide consensus are used to determine notability. By far the most important is the general notability guideline (abbreviated GNG), which states that the topic of a stand-alone article or list is "presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Each of these three elements is crucial and occasionally subtle—I will attempt to exegete the GNG below. There are also subject-specific notability guidelines—abbreviated SNGs, and often with shortened names like WP:NFOOTY and WP:NCORP—which are, variously, supplementary to the GNG, dominant over the GNG, or entirely subservient to it. I will try to explain this aspect below. A thorough understanding of notability criteria is important as an editor and paramount as an effective NPP reviewer. A reviewer not confident in their assessment of an article's notability should leave it unreviewed.

Y Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

General reflections: Before reading this full page, I didn't have enough emphasis on the importance of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I think this applies more to WP:NEVENT and the closely related WP:BIO1E, so I will try to understand those better. I'm also not sure how WP:NPOL relates to all this, which I'll explain below. Finally, maybe I could get a clarification on editors' attitude toward proclamations of "inclusionism" and "deletionism", esp. now seeing an AfD-related case on ArbCom. I think I'm generally careful and civil in discussions, but on my user page I call myself a deletionist. Perhaps that userbox is incompatible with being an NPP reviewer. Ovinus (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus, it's always best to approach each situation from a NPOV, and maintain a pragmatic approach to your work on WP. I highly recommend that you read, and re-read Notability in a nutshell at the top of this page. (Remember to ping me when you complete each part, and/or if you have a question. ) Atsme 💬 📧 00:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Atsme Indeed, being impartial is difficult but important. I did read that passage before reading WP:Notability. Is my writing here too focused on the details of how we determine it rather than the general notion of what makes something notable? Or is there something else you’d like me consider? Ovinus (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus, there are other things I'd like for you to consider. There are situations when an event or person is noteworthy but may not have "significant" coverage. I like that you used sufficient in lieu of significant. If you come across an article that is completely unsourced, we first make sure that it's not OR, not notable, and not a hoax. The latter are typically sourced but the sources don't support it. If it checks out to be notable, we (a) add RS that support what is written, if we have time or (b) draftify the article, and politely communicate with the article creator on their UTP, offer our help if they don't understand inline citations or how to add references, or send them to WP:Teahouse. If the work is sourced, and just needs a clean-up and/or inline citations, we tag it, but if we have time, we go ahead and fix it because once it's marked patrolled, the article is INDEXED. Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: I see. Well, I guess the thrust of notability, putting aside all the guidelines that attempt to put it on rigorous footing, is whether something has made an impact. While the significant coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG is often a good signal of that impact, it can fail in both directions (e.g., too much emphasis on singular events, too little emphasis on impressive contributions by lesser-known scientists, not enough on geographical information that makes WP a better gazetteer). So an example of a noteworthy person who might not have gotten significant coverage, and a rather embarrassing one for Wikipedia, is Donna Strickland before her winning the Nobel Prize. Her work was important to her field, and Wikipedia would have been better to have an article about her—hence why we have WP:NACADEMIC. An example of a notable event has not garnered significant coverage... this, I really don't know. Ovinus (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Some refer to it as common sense with a little help from critical thinking. Atsme 💬 📧 21:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

General Notability Guideline (GNG)

The general notability guideline states that a stand-alone article or list is presumed notable if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Each of these three aspects are crucial to meeting the GNG and should not be divorced from another. Significant coverage, often abbreviated WP:SIGCOV, is coverage which describes a topic in detail. It really lies on a spectrum. One can have volumes devoted to the study of anteaters and trivially conclude that anteaters have received significant coverage. On the other hand, one can observe only a brief mention of a local pet anteater in The New York Times and, finding nothing else, conclude that this coverage is not significant, and that therefore Peter is not (yet!) suitable for his own article. Reliable sources... well, I'll try to describe them below. In short, they are secondary sources from which information can be trusted. They are not necessarily sources which are "unbiased" or espouse a "view from nowhere". They need not be online or trivial to access. But, for the purposes of our discussion on notability, they must provide significant coverage of the article topic. Finally, independence means a lack of intellectual association between sources and the topic, and between each other. For example, an anteater plushie company that has spent millions on press releases will not see its own Wikipedia article on the basis of these sources, and a single newspaper's series of meticulous articles on the company will not help (or even combined with another series by that newspaper's subsidiaries) if there are no other sources, per the "multiple sources" criterion. (Also, WP:NCORP applies, which comes later.)

The number of sources may vary. At least one has to be a secondary source, to ensure verifiability is achievable. If that source covers the topic in great depth, that may be sufficient. But ideally, multiple secondary sources should be found. The demand on source quality is higher on biographies of living people and on companies and organizations.

General reflections: At WP:Articles for deletion/Demi Rose I thought that the given sources were independent, reliable, and gave significant coverage by being interviews with the subject. Now reading WP:NPEOPLE (which I should have cited), I see no difference from the GNG. Yes, there are some long footnotes explaining what independence entails in this context... but is there a substantive difference from the GNG? Ovinus (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Y Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Prior to the internet, "significant" coverage as we know it today simply didn't exist beyond local, regional & a few national magazines. The first "coast-to-coast" TV broadcast didn't happen until Sept 1951. Dating back even further to the 19th & early- to mid-20th centuries, coverage was even less, especially when considering notable women and academics. Historically speaking, "firsts" are typically notable, as is history itself. There are nuances to consider when looking for significant coverage to establish notability, which is why I really appreciated your use of "sufficient" coverage above. The topic/person should satisfy our 3 core content policies (NPOV, V, OR) first and foremost, and then we look at the sources and inline citations. Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t actually think about the lack of proper old media and the difficulty of accessing it, even if it did exist. So, by the “impact” metric I mentioned above, older topics may still be notable even if there isn’t the same degree of coverage as a modern day equivalent (whatever they even means!) would have. I’m not exactly sure how this applies as a reviewer, though. Ovinus (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Granted, we don't get enough true-blue encyclopedic content - the kind of events and articles about trailblazers that have been written about in books, newspapers, articles & other historic documents that have been preserved by historians, academics, and librarians, including the actual narratives by authors of a bygone era. Some geographical features/places are preserved in the National Register, there are monuments & paintings that are testament to the artist, and other types of documentation/images that can be found with a visit to Newspaper archives - that's when WP:V matters most. You will be amazed at what you'll find there, but it is much harder to find than what is popular today, such as politics, sports, movies, video games, and music. Atsme 💬 📧 21:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

Life would be easier, were the GNG the only notability policy. Alas, such a Wikipedia would be infested with articles on elementary schools, local politicians, and Floridian shenanigans. It would also perhaps exclude otherwise-encyclopedic subjects. Thus, editors have developed some special notability criteria, with various relations to the GNG.

Some SNGs supplement the GNG, in the sense if either the GNG or SNG applies, the topic is notable. This relationship is the most intuitive; the SNG is simply an alternative path to notability. Such SNGs include WP:NACADEMIC, the guideline for academics and the like, which may be met through various academic or career accomplishments; and WP:GEOLAND, which for example states that any named geographical feature is notable if more than mere statistics exist. Note that an academic who does not pass WP:NACADEMIC may still be notable through the GNG.

Some SNGs override or replace the GNG. For poor new page patrollers, a commonly encountered such SNG is WP:NCORP, the notability standards for corporations and organizations, which I will explain below. In the example of WP:NEVENT, a complex list of criteria help determine whether an event is suitable for its own article. For example, under WP:NEVENT, murders are not notable solely on the basis of intense local coverage, or even national coverage, but if are covered broadly and continuously (WP:COVERAGE) and they have a lasting impact (WP:LASTING), then they probably deserve an article. If an event meets WP:GNG but not WP:NEVENT, that event does not merit its own article.

Some SNGs simply suggest that the GNG is likely met. These are subservient to the GNG. For example, WP:NSPORT provides criteria on whether a sportsperson is likely to be notable under the GNG, because there probably exist sources and coverage which allow the GNG to be met, but at an AfD, editors may realize that the subject does not meet the GNG and therefore should be deleted or redirected.

General reflections: This is the complexity of notability that makes me tremble, Jesus Christ. I know there is WP:OUTCOMES but... seriously. Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of words on SNGs, and each SNG subject subject to interpretation by various denominations. I think I will focus on WP:NCORP and let the others slowly dawn on me. For WP:NPOL, my understanding is that there is much higher bar for politicians to be covered as politicians, but that if they meet the GNG they still merit an article (that may still mention their political endeavors). Also, I'm going to take a pause here to see whether these are the kinds of responses you're looking for, if that's alright. Lmk if you'd rather I finish this whole section first. Ovinus (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Y The nuances are formidable. A good rule of thumb: consider the percentages of it passing or failing an AfD...a CSD and PROD is even more difficult. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: Sorry for the delay; I’ve honestly been quite burnt out on reading all the guidelines. I’ll try to understand NCORP over the next few days, but RS should be relatively straightforward. Ovinus (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus, I'm a little disappointed that you burned out so quickly, and haven't finished Pt. 1 of this 5 Pt exercise. We haven't even gotten into the live reviews. Keep in mind that NPP tutors are reading/discussing/explaining these same PAGs quite frequently, not to mention reviewing student summaries of them. I certainly don't want to force you into doing something you don't want to do. This tutorial is not simply about reciting what you see as straightforward PAGs; rather, it is about your perception of specific PAGs that are critical to the NPP process, summarized in your own words. NPP reviewers determine whether the work of others will be published or rejected, and that's a pretty important task that should not be taken lightly. If you need more time, that's fine - take your time as long as you intend to complete the course. If you're thinking NPP is not for you, then please just let me know. NPP is hard work, time-consuming, and not a task that's suited for everyone. Atsme 💬 📧 01:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: Thanks for calling me out on that; I truly want to be a good new page reviewer, and I know it is tedious but important work. But I'm worried I simply don't have the prerequisites down. Should I have more experience at AfD and seeing how notability works in practice? I was just surprised at the complexity of the SNGs, and I've never really applied them at AfD. So I started reading through them all—hence the burnout. Ovinus (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus - it's midnight here, and my brain needs to sleep. Keep up the good work, keep expressing your thoughts as you've been doing, work at a comfortable pace so you won't burn out, and don't hesitate to ask questions - that's why I'm here...to answer your questions, and present a few situations that will require critical thinking skills. I will also present new perspectives for you to mull over, as it will help you to better understand relevant WP:PAGs, including the nuances and ambiguities. I don't think you'll be disappointed when it's all said and done. We'll discuss more after sleep. Atsme 💬 📧 04:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest

The notability guideline for organizations and companies, frequently abbreviated WP:NCORP, is similar to GNG, but places a high emphasis on source quality. In particular, to count toward notability, the coverage of a company must be deep and from a secondary source entirely independent of the company. Even if there are a wealth of nonindependent sources—Forbes, for example, might contain several sponsored articles about a company—notability is not implied. Companies and organizations have a substantial interest in getting Wikipedia articles, which rank highly on source results and confer legitimacy or "importance". PR firms of various shades of shadiness will try to get an article up whether or not WP:NCORP is met, and whether or not they follow WP:COI editing guidelines.

For obvious cases, speedy deletion criterion WP:A7 applies (no credible claim of significance) unless the subject is an educational organization, in which case draftification is likely (?). WP:G11 (exclusively promotional) may also apply. If the article contains only material sourced to the company itself or to non-independent sources, but isn't entirely promotional, I would do a quick search to assess whether the company is definitely notable. If notability is borderline, or if the contributor has an apparent COI, I'd err on the side of caution and AfD it. (Note that "borderline" in this case simply means I could only find one significant and totally independent in-depth coverage of the subject. Realistically, with companies, that information can be quickly found on Google, and a deep search into, say, JSTor is probably unnecessary.) If the company is notable I'd NPOVify the article and pare it down to content not sourced directly from the company (besides generic information like date of founding, etc). But I'm not sure what I'd do if there was nothing left. Tag it? AfD it? I'd like to see what happens in practice. For articles on non-commercial organizations, I'd probably have a bit more leeway than on commercial organizations, but again, I'd like to know what happens in practice.

Non-notable individuals are also frequently encountered by new page patrollers. Again, WP:G11 and WP:A7 may apply. Concerns about source independence are similar to that for companies. Biographies without a single source concerning the subject should be WP:BLPPRODed.

General reflections: Identifying true source independence can be difficult, and in my opinion it is best to err on the side of caution. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otgonbayar Ershuu, I was a fledgling, not yet disillusioned by having seen so much cruft, and was too credulous to at least one of the sources that Vexatious brought up. It was the first time I saw how the line of independence can be easily blurred. Also, I do not understand why the educational organization exception exists for WP:A7, and I'm curious: what happens in practice when non-notable schools crop up in the NPP queue? Ovinus (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Y Ovinus - these types of articles can be tricky because some (and that "some" is growing) are written by PE/UPE. Some are cookie cutter articles, possibly even thrown together by Bots. Hopefully, by the time you read this, the AfD and article will still be available for you to study. Reviewers who don't spend the time necessary to make sure the sources support the material can be easily hoodwinked into believing it's legit, and not a promotional article. See my comment in the AfD, read the article, look at the cited sources, and you will come to realize the blatantly obvious promotion. Online publications (all of them, even the NYTimes, Forbes, etc.) will promote a company and its execs for $$. The company's PR department will write the material to be published so that it doesn't look like an add or promotion like it used to when everything was printed and such promotions were acknowledged. My comment in the AfD explains why it is marketing. You will learn to spot it over time, but don't be too concerned about it now - ask questions and discuss with colleagues if you're not sure. Atsme 💬 📧 21:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: I'm surprised even the NYT would publish that stuff. Aren't they required by US law to put some sort of disclosure, or are the articles beneath that threshold? It'd be cool to have automated sentiment analysis on company articles, or even something as straightforward as looking for keywords ("solutions", "raised over", "boasts") and a count of source diversity. Crude, but might quickly identify already-existing problematic articles, although I'd suspect most of them are already tagged. There's also this which I recently redirected, and I'm not sure about the notability of List of GSK plc products. Is there some sort of consensus on List of ... products] articles? Anyway, ECP protect all company articles? :P Ovinus (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Pubs walk the legal line - have staff attorneys - besides, writing articles that are promotional is neither illegal, nor regulated, especially when you use words like building & planning which tells us it's not finished. It's not deceptive trade, and if the NYTimes editor/author believes in the product, there's nothing that has to be disclosed. Anyway...you've got great ideas, Ovinus. Let's get you through this tutorial and on the job reviewing articles, and participating in our discussions at NPP. I'm in discussions now about our needs for automation in order to present something to the WMF Trustees. In fact, DannyS (one of our tech gurus) creates Bots for us based on our wishes/needs, such as this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DannyS712_bot_III/Redirects.json&diff=prev&oldid=1096938983 - not everything has to go through the WMF, but I think Danny used to be with WMF (and still may be). Atsme 💬 📧 00:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS

Ovinus See the last paragraph in the subsection WP:MULTSOURCES as it supports what I stated above relative to the nuances of WP:N, particularly historical subjects. Also keep context in mind when reading that paragraph (tech start-ups vs historically speaking). Modern technology did not exist in early America, and the oppression of people based on race and gender was global. IOW, the lack of RS was not unique to Bangladeshi women. See Oppression of women (redirected to Sexism, which I consider a poor choice.) Atsme 💬 📧 12:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources, often abbreviated WP:RS, are published sources from which information can be trusted for use in Wikipedia. In the interest of WP:Verifiability, a core policy, all Wikipedia sources must be published in some form. (Search insource:"pers. comm" for a laugh.) Source quality may be evaluated by looking at, among other aspects, the date of publication, amount of editorial oversight, and the author and publishing company. Source quality only correlates with, and does not imply, suitability for use in context: A weak source can be used for simple and uncontroversial claims, while a strong source that focuses on some technical topic probably shouldn't be used for popular culture. Medical claims must meet the stringent requirements of WP:MEDRS. Of particular interest to evaluating notability, sources should be inspected for independence alongside reliability. As we discussed, this independence is harder to establish for corporations and people, who have a strong interest in directly influencing publications in various newspapers.
When doing a WP:BEFORE search to establish or question notability, a Google search may immediately turn up reliable sources that prove notability. Great! And a lack of independent, reliable sources in a Google search, for topics like Internet culture, may be enough; it's unlikely that there will be nothing online discussing a famous meme, but significant coverage in subscription-only journals. This is not true for most topics, though. The Wikipedia Library may help in locating sources, giving access to old US newspapers and JSTOR. Google Books may also help, and foreign-language topics are especially tricky. See my research for WP:Articles for deletion/List of waterfalls in Iran, where I ultimately just used Google Translate to prove WP:LISTN, but it's important to note that outside the West--and especially in developing countries--often the only good sources that exist are newspapers and TV broadcasts. For very old topics, there may be reliable sources locked up in dusty and obscure books like the Scotichronicon. This ties into your point on WP:MULTSOURCES, which clarifies that some organizations will naturally receive less coverage than others, while still being notable. It's important to exercise discretion and be somewhat more lenient on historical, foreign-language, etc. topics. That being said, some reliable sources (plural) must be found regardless, since WP:V is king.
This is where it gets tricky, as we briefly discussed. Much of the purpose of the "supplementary"-type SNGs is to establish criteria which usually imply the existence of reliable sources, although they may be hard to find. It can even happen to companies, I think. Take Moodle, a pretty widely used piece of software (apparently) but which hasn't received much independent coverage on Google News. Yet, there have been plenty of journal articles on its effectiveness, some of which appear independent, e.g. [1] [2]. But there are also some clearly non-independent ones like [3]. (Even though Moodle is a piece of open-source software, WP:NCORP applies because it is operated by a company of the same name which has clearly had influence on the article. See [4] if your stomach is empty.) These independent journal articles probably count toward notability with WP:NCORP, and I think Moodle clears the bar.
General reflections: What's frustrating to me is that the onus is on everyone else to find sources and there are no consequences for a perfunctory WP:BEFORE search. For BLPs and still-operating corporations and organizations--okay, I'd rather err on the side of deletion. But for historical topics that may require heading off to the British Library to find sources on? There are few people with an axe to grind on Martin Evans (model engineer). I wish there were a method of "permanent draftification" so that people could be given time to find more sources, but I guess WP:REFUND kind of serves that purpose. Ovinus (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

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

I'd first use some intuition. Assuming the article isn't a plain hoax, would the encyclopedia be better off with this article? In some sense this relates to WP:NOT and is detached from any particular notability guideline. If a speedy deletion criterion applies, I'd use it. If the prose is suspicious, either by being brilliant or by being in a strange tone of voice, I'd perform a copyvio search. If the article is clearly a split from another article, I'd check the edit history and ensure that the appropriate policy for copying within Wikipedia has been followed. And finally, I'd look for AfDs with a similar name as the new article. Then, if the article hasn't been edited for some time, I'd start evaluating for notability and following the NPP flowchart. At each step, if I find something problematic I'd of course notify the user in question (unless they're clearly some random LTA, in which case I'd report to the appropriate noticeboard).
Pinging Atsme. Ovinus (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Y Well done, Ovinus - very well done!!! Apologies for my being a little tardy – the weekend got in the way. Please proceed at your own pace. I'm ok with shorter summaries if you so choose. I just need enough to let me know that you have a good grip on the respective PAGs in this tutorial, (as you demonstrated here). If you have any questions or concerns about a particular aspect of a policy/guideline, I'm happy to discuss. Atsme 💬 📧 17:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Passed Pt. 1 Atsme 💬 📧 17:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

Assume good faith

A core principle of editing is to assume that others are also interested in improving the encyclopedia. An editing environment in which everyone has a battleground mentality and is hostile or even neutral to their fellow editors would... not work. Good-faith content-based disagreements are arguably beneficial, in that they stimulate rational discussion and therefore better quality content. Closely related is the principle to not "bite the newbies": When new editors make totally misguided edits, try to guide them along to a better place. Even if only 1% of them become productive editors, that's still 1%, not 0%.
NPP (similarly to AfC) has the Sisyphean task of guiding the newbies. Test pages and confusing or inappropriate articles should not be responded to with severe warnings, but gentle and descriptive talk page messages. Ideally, a personal comment would be attached to each, and I'd definitely attach personal comments for people who I think have potential. But realistically, templated messages are the tool of choice in 90% of cases. If a user has a history of deleted pages, more communication may be necessary. See User talk:AmericanEditor350#Please stop creating articles for an example.

Great example - Prax's response was priceless!! Atsme 💬 📧 20:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes AGF falls short. It's fairly rare in non-DS areas in general editing, but is common with, say, attack BLPs or highly promotional articles written by associates of the subject. These should not be treated quite as gently; it's highly unlikely that someone whose first article is "BOB IS A CHILD PREDATOR", or "Wombat Firearms sells high-quality rifles ..." will become a productive editor. Yet caution is still required: Just because it's a company article written by a newbie doesn't mean it's not in good faith! See Talk:Hydro Flask#Contested deletion for an example. The subject is maybe notable but the editor was 100% not a Hydro Flask PR employee, and was indeed a helpful editor who I tried to advise (e.g., User talk:Mossypiglet#Some small advice). (I should note my understanding of NCORP was too lax at the time, so if I conducted a proper source assessment today I might conclude that hydroflasks are not notable. Intuition tells me it is, but it may be a phenomenon peculiar to the people I tend to be friends with.)
Pinging Atsme. Also, I somewhat enjoy writing these longer form responses because they make me reflect more, but if you would prefer shorter responses in the interest of time I can do that. Ovinus (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No, no - please, not for my sake. I truly enjoy reading the responses because it keeps my mind open to varying perspectives and how different people interpret things in different ways. That's how we grow and improve. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable. My tutorial is the antithesis of a rigid, you must follow the rules style tutorial...it is designed to exercise one's critical thinking skills, with an openness to varying thought processes. Atsme 💬 📧 20:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

Wikipedia's high visibility has consequences. Even in 2005, the Seigenthaler incident, an incidence of libel on a Wikipedia page, was enough to garner significant coverage and a strong reaction from the subject. Fast forward 17 years, and Wikipedia is now the top result for many search queries--including those for living people. Although defamation/libel laws in the US are fairly protective of free speech, and the Communications Decency Act probably protects the WMF and most editors from legal issues, there is a real risk of harming innocent people. Thus, Wikipedia editors must exercise extra caution when editing BLPs, as codified in policy, by sourcing controversial claims to high quality sources.
One easy corollary of BLP policy is that attack pages must be dealt with swiftly and without courtesy to the editor who creates them. A related policy is WP:BLPPROD, which, to ensure compliance with BLP policy, permits quick deletion of BLPs when no sources exist. In general, we must be conservative and remove controversial content rather than tagging it {{citation needed}}. For relatively mundane content like birthdays that is only poorly sourced, I typically just tag with {{better source needed}} if I can't find a good source.
Anyway, with regards to NPP work, BLP policy means we need to pay especial attention to the used sources, and, when giving the article a skim, looking at all controversial claims. It's also probably good to slap a {{BLP}} on there. If the article creator is a newbie, it's worth reminding them of BLP, regardless of how well they did--just a quick note like "thanks for making Jane Doe! For future reference, Wikipedia requires high-quality sourcing for biographies of living people" etc.
General reflections: At WP:Articles for deletion/Demi Rose, many of the sources cited in support of meeting GNG were not up to BLP standard. That's to be expected: The article subject is an influencer mostly known for posting racy selfies. But she did have enough coverage in RS that I considered (and consensus found) her to pass GNG. As one !voter noted, she has 19 million Instagram followers, and while that's not sufficient for notability, it's certainly suggestive.
Here I see an interesting case of Wikipedia's potential bias due to BLP policy. Celebrities borderline notable under current policy (see WP:Articles for deletion/Kristen Hancher for another case, much earlier in my time here) have a much bigger relative impact than do most living people, and are arguably "more notable" on that basis. I was chatting with my friend about these people and she knew about both (although not in much detail). Who is most interested in knowing about Kristen Hancher, about Demi Rose? Probably millennial and Gen Z women and teens! Who wants to know about cricket cruft and borderline notable pornographers? ... It's similar to Wikipedia's oft-criticized bias against, say, historically important women, a bias which defenders of Wikipedia usually retort with, "Wikipedia's bias reflects the sources' bias". I think it applies here too, but with a reliable inserted in there.
Pinging Atsme. Ovinus (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Y Well stated...and thorough. I am duly impressed, Ovinus. Atsme 💬 📧 01:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)

Paid contributions without proper disclosure (UPE) are in violation of the WMF's terms of use. And even if someone is not paid, perhaps a bored employee or hapless intern, COI edits compromise the neutrality of the encyclopedia. Another fairly common form of COI is article subjects editing themselves. Some COI edits are trivial to detect, hence WP:G11 and the like. Others are more subtle, especially the edits of COI rings hired by companies to fluff up their Wikipedia articles.
For NPP work, when an article has serious potential for COI editing, the main contributor and their contributions should be examined. Behavior I've seen: Adding a lot of mentions to a company or person in tangentially related articles, some "fixed typo"-type edits preceding the company or person article, and "defluffing" edits to other company articles. I think this last one is somewhat clever--if you make yourself appear as someone who enjoys removing cruft from company articles, then you're slightly less suspicious writing about your own company. The username itself may also give clues, and some names violate the username policy and should be reported. If a COI is suspected, the user should be sternly notified and the article should be tagged (possibly with a G11 or A7, and certainly with a paid contribution tag). If a COI is confirmed, put it on the talk page.
Question: Should I mark these articles as reviewed, though?

No. But if an admin rejects the G11 or A7 the article will either be fixed or sent to AfD at which time it should be marked reviewed. Also see Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Articles for deletion (AfD) and Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Technical details. Atsme 💬 📧 01:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

General reflections: A recent COI infestation I tried to help with surrounds the software company JetBrains. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppCode and Talk:JetBrains. More recently, the COI-conflicted editors are using the talk page in a way that I think is appropriate and genuinely improves the article; I will try to work with them accordingly. I admit have much contempt for COI editors and enjoy destroying their creations... I have tried rewriting such articles in the past, e.g. Milton Hershey School, which was originally this. Yet I think I may have gone too far in the opposite direction by putting too much info on school controversies. Maybe BLP applies, since corporations are people too. Ovinus (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Y Ovinus, I can't imagine a better approach or finalé than the way you handled it. Very well done! Atsme 💬 📧 01:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to note I haven't forgotten about this. Will finish the rest of part 2 tomorrow. Ovinus (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright

The English Wikipedia must strictly follow US copyright law, and contributed text must be released under a compatible free license (for example, CC BY-SA NC is not sufficient). Images and other files must follow the same rules unless uploaded under the fair use policy, which is fairly restrictive.
NPP reviewers, especially when encountering an article that is unusually well-written or in a strange tone, should check for copyright violations. Excessively long quotes, even if properly attributed, also may be copyright violations. If a copyright violation is found from the first revision, the page should be CSDed, but I'm not sure what you'd do when the first edit doesn't have a copyvio. Still CSD it? Anyway, if the article is substantially copied from a PD or freely licensed source, but not cited inline, there is a template for that (I forget what it's called) and it's not a major problem, although the contributor should be reminded to source it next time. Ovinus (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Y Ovinus - see WP:CP and for parts of an article but not the whole article see Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Parts of article violate copyright. Atsme 💬 📧 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hoaxes

I think this one is fairly obvious. Don't create hoaxes, even for the purpose of testing anti-hoax measures. It severely damages Wikipedia's credibility, and sophisticated hoaxes are known to slip through the cracks--although one of NPP's goals is to make that unlikely! Anyway, extremely obvious hoaxes should be CSDed, while less obvious hoaxes should be PRODed and suspected hoaxes should be tagged with {{hoax}}. As an example of a not particularly obvious hoax, [5] was declined to be speedy deleted and taken to AfD. Now, I'm not sure how well I'd be able to detect hoaxes in practice, especially when all the cited sources are offline. Ovinus (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Y - The Heat Is On couldn't have come at a more opportune time! In much the same way we verify that an article is not a hoax, we should verify that it is a hoax. It's hell proving a negative, and why we must exercise caution before making any final decisions to include it on a hoax list, but I like your suggestion: {{R from possible hoax}}. Atsme 💬 📧 17:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It is pretty interesting, and propitious indeed--a lesson for us both. I'm genuinely curious as to what % of articles are completely bogus. Ovinus (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Y My guess is few based on percentages. Keep in mind that there are many television programs, specials and short run series dating back to the 80s-90s (and before) that are still not archived or that have been lost by the networks or local/regional tv stations, especially if the acquisition formats were the old dinosaur 3/4" & Beta tapes. Film stood a better chance of being preserved but storage was a major issue for all of those big bulky formats. Storing paperwork was also an issue, which is why I wasn't too hasty to declare The Heat Is On a blatant hoax. Also keep in mind that back in those days, we didn't have the same type of media coverage we have today with the internet, so unless you're looking in the Entertainment/TV guide section of local newspapers, and in the few national magazines of that era, it's unlikely you're going to find much. That doesn't necessarily mean the program wasn't notable, or didn't exist. Read this article which provides a timeline of broadcast history so you can see things from a slightly different perspective about these older programs and why multiple sources may not apply to their notability, but their historical significance does. IOW, don't overlook the nuances. Atsme 💬 📧 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Attack pages

Attack pages are pages which exist mostly to attack the subject, frequently a BLP. Attack pages are subject to speedy deletion in any namespace and should be tagged {{db-attack}} for an admin to review. I'm not sure how conservative we're supposed to be on it, though. Is it like G1 gibberish where we take a restrictive definition, or do we err on the side of tagging it? For example, what if there's a page with some neutral introduction, and then a massive and undue criticism section? Ovinus (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus, my suggestion would be to remove obvious offensive material if it is unsourced or unreliably sourced, and if it's the whole article, then db-attack is the way to go. If it's just a small section that's questionable, tag that section with an applicable tag. If it's just a sentence or two in the lead, or elsewhere in the body text, inline tag it. Whatever you do, don't get into an edit war over it. Atsme 💬 📧 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Y Passed Pt. 2 Atsme 💬 📧 17:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)

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

Discussions with creators of new pages

Discussions should be unwaveringly civil; competent writers are one of Wikipedia's greatest assets. Therefore, biting a new editor by, say, immediately tagging their articles for deletion, even in the interest of expediency, may drive them away. This isn't an article creation per se, but one of my first edits was a random requested move for a high school; the person who closed the discussion was polite and left a welcome template on my talk page. If he were more aggressive about it, I probably would have left. Depending on their current level of competence, some editors may need more or less guidance. The Teahouse is a reasonable starting place and is well-watched. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Y

Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

As I noted above somewhere, there are a lot of new pages, and thus it's not really feasible to type out a personal response for every page. Therefore, a variety of templates exist to notify page creators. For deletions, which must be supplemented with a notification to the creator, Twinkle automates the process quite nicely. Clearly promotional usernames should be reported to WP:UAA and not be simultaneously discussed on the user's talk. COIs should be responded to manually, with templates like {{uw-paid1}}, and it's always nice to thank or congratulate new editors. Another case would be if an examination of the editor's previous contributions are similarly troublesome. For copyright violations especially, past contributions should be scrutinized. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Y

Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

Civility, and outside of blatant cases, assuming good faith, are important. For newer editors I'd avoid the dreaded three letter acronyms and direct them to the Teahouse. Clarity and knowledge... hm. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I should put myself in the shoes of the new editor and ask myself: How will they understand (or perhaps not understand) what I'm telling them? I'd also be careful to not indiscriminately invoke "experience"; it's mildly bitey to call them inexperienced but then not say how they can gain experience. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Y

Wikilove/positive comments

This is straightforward enough; I'd give some Wikilove to editors who are doing decent work. I'm not sure what the threshold of "decent" is; it'll probably depend on my mood. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Y

Warning templates

Warning templates are most useful in the cases of attack pages and suspected COI, and should be used when good faith is severely in doubt. I'd use them judiciously because the level-two ones can be intimidating. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Random question: Why does {{Stop NPP}} exist? Isn't NPP restricted to people with a reasonable amount of experience? Also Atsme Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

See Template:Stop NPP/doc - ...it's used to advise users performing new pages patrol improperly and with insufficient experience, to please stop doing so. Anybody can tag a new article in mainspace, and sometimes you'll see a small group of new editors checking each other's articles, or something along that line. There are also times when the user right is granted to an editor who managed to convince an admin they are capable of doing the job when they're not.
Passed Pt. 3 Atsme 💬 📧 03:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

Articles for Deletion

AfD is where the fate of articles is decided by the community. It is preferred for articles where deletion might be slightly contentious (i.e., not deserving a PROD or a CSD). AfDs are open for at least seven days (unless the result would be obvious) and may be extended to 21 days. The process can be a little convoluted.

Y Convoluted is an understatement. Recommended reading: User talk:Atsme#Woke but particularly this brilliantly written exposé, The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta. I simply call it "the hegemony of the asshole consensus". While not always an issue, the times that it is can be quite frustrating, be it an AfD or an RfC. As you are already aware, admins tend to be reluctant to take action on a speedy, thereby forcing us to use AfD. I have requested stats to see how many rejected CSDs have gone to AfD and were deleted vs redirected/merged/kept. I'm also of the mind that the position assumed by admins may have developed before we Kudpung established the program we have now, and it was easy to acquire the rights...but it is what it is. Atsme 💬 📧 13:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

THE HEGEMONY OF THE ASSHOLE CONSENSUS. LOL. Great. There are a few parts of that article I disagree with—maybe because I haven't been here long enough to become cynical—but the main thrust is quite accurate. Whoever has enough zeal and time on their hands (and perhaps enough social capital) will get their way. Ovinus (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Social capital" - I like that...speaks volumes!! Atsme 💬 📧 00:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

BEFORE nominating

Before nominating an article for deletion, an editor should check whether CSD, PROD and/or BLPPROD are appropriate. AfD is fairly backlogged and it's best to not send gobs of articles there (indeed, there's an ArbCom case about it right now). If the main concern is notability, we then conduct a search for sources. It's unrealistic to conduct a very thorough search, especially for articles where offline sources are likely to have significant coverage, but at least a search through google news, google books, and probably TWL should be conducted. If the article should be deleted for WP:NOT concerns, WP:POVFORK, etc., then it should be assessed whether the article can simply be improved through editing. If so, then the article can be tagged or worked on immediately—that's always best!

Y We should approach each article with our first thoughts being to keep, and tag if necessary. The amount of extra work that is required to keep it is entirely dependent on the amount of time a patroller has to invest. If applicable, WP:Draftify is a better option than AfD in situations of noncompliant MOS, a serious lack of inline citations and other relative issues that fail GNG, V and/or NOR (excluding hoaxes). I don't know how far my proposal to WMF will succeed, but it does propose using draftified articles as training tools for Edit-a-thons hosted by universities, and other academic groups. Atsme 💬 📧 13:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"We should approach each article with our first thoughts being to keep" I like that and will keep that in mind. Draft articles as training tools is actually a cute idea; find drafts which are borderline, but which provide a skeleton for them dress up. Ovinus (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus - you're almost done!! Just wanted to let you know that I'm ok, and look forward to you wrapping up the menial portions of this training exercise so we can do some live NPP reviews, and get you the user rights. We need you at NPP. Atsme 💬 📧 13:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Haha, okay. I didn't really address soft deletion so I'll do that now, but otherwise sounds good and we can move to live reviews. I'm a bit busy over the next few weeks in real life, but I'm certainly free after 6 pm PST, so if you give me articles within a few hours of that then it should work smoothly. Ovinus (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Y It's a deal. Atsme 💬 📧 00:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

PROD and BLPPROD (optional - already addressed above)

WP:Soft delete (optional - already addressed above)

Soft deletion is used when a deletion discussion hasn't received enough comments to constitute a consensus. That may happen because people think the result is obvious, or simply don't care for that type of article, etc. A soft deleted article may be restored on request by any editor in good standing, for example if they have found some sources and want to expand it. Ovinus (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Y

Speedy Deletion (optional - already addressed above)

Y Passed Part 4!! Atsme 💬 📧 00:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

Improvement Tagging

Articles which have substantial problems, but not enough for a PROD or AfD to be appropriate and which are not eligible for speedy deletion (which should take precedence), may be tagged for improvement. The point of tagging articles, sections or assertions is to alert other editors to a problem. (In my opinion, it also makes sure the reader has some doubt after they see the ^{[citation needed]}, etc.) Articles may be tagged for notability concerns, say if you feel they are borderline and you couldn't find source, but you think there might be hard-to-access sources. Tags should be used judiciously and if I have the energy, I should improve the article. If the problems are more severe, for example poor sourcing on a BLP, material may be excised and the creator gently notified of relevant policies and guidelines. Over-tagging articles is annoying to everyone; if an article has pervasive, say, sourcing concerns, section- or article-level templates like {{Sources}} should be used. Ovinus (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Y

Categorizing (optional)

Categorizing articles helps with many things, like better search functionality and collecting data for Wikidata. Alas, I'm not super familiar with category guidelines... some mumbo jumbo about diffusing and nondiffusing categories... I'd probably just tag it with basic stuff like Category:1950 deaths, Category:Extinct species, and perhaps some gnome will come around and make it better or more specific. Ovinus (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Y Passed Pt. 5 Good job!! And my honor to have had the opportunity to collaborate with you! Atsme 💬 📧 00:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise

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

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

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

1. Carl Carlson

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

2. Fightback

Another conversion to a redirect. The disambiguation target looks good, and contains a brief mention of the topic, which is likely nonnotable as a local chapter of a moderately sized organization. (There is another "Fightback", so it wouldn't work to redirect it to International Marxist Tendency#Whatever. Ovinus (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

3. Taimiao

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

4. Josh Stanley

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

5. Distortions Unlimited

Yuck. Looks like a promotional article was undeleted after a soft delete, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Distortions_Unlimited. It's not quite a G11, but I think it's an A7. I've set a Discord reminder and in a week I'll AfD it, if no improvements have been made—not allowed to PROD or CSD it a second time, since both were previously done. I also would not mark it as reviewed. Ovinus (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Y Passed Nice job! Atsme 💬 📧 18:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Evaluation

Once I have completed the evaluation and you have passed the course, you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review.

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

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

:) Thank you!! It was a pleasure to be under your tutelage, and I look forward to seeing you around at NPP and other places. Ovinus (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tips

User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js - a very useful tool and easy to install. The script prepends a small icon to each citation in the Reference section indicating the grading and type of source; most are in sync with WP:RSP.
User:Headbomb/unreliable - another useful tool that grades sources using highlight colors
User:Evad37/duplinks-alt - highlights duplicate wikilinks. We should only wikilink once, sometimes twice if wikilinked in the lead and again further enough down in the article that it would prove useful. When reviewing, you can quickly find and eliminate wikilink overkill.
User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool

Userbox

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

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

invalid request by blocked user 11-08-2022

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

NPP Training

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Atsme,

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

Best,

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

MaxnaCarta

Latest comment: 2 years ago58 comments2 people in discussion

Passed August 29, 2022

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Notability in a nutshell

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

Welcome New Trainee!

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

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.
Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

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

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

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

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Just in case my first ping didn't go through, MaxnaCarta, here it is again. Atsme 💬 📧 00:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme I never got the first ping! I assumed you may have other stuff on. Thanks! Ready to start. Cheers. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Atsme, I have read all the content. Cheers! MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Good job, MaxnaCarta!! You may begin the course. Once you have completed Part 1, ping me so I can review it, and proceed to Part 2, and so forth throughout this exercise. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 11:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)