User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Knightsrises10

Welcome. I look forward to working with you - no worries if there are times where one or both of us are unavailable. In fact I can tell you that I will be completely off the Internet for most of next week (Tues - Fri). So to start with, have you read New_pages_patrol? It's a long but absolutely necessary read. Once you've done that point me to the one or two areas where you feel like your skills are strongest and the one or two areas where you think your skills need the most improvement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read this before, and will read again too. As far as I can say, my strongest areas are nominating for deletion, like CSDs and Afds. I can also be pretty good in tagging articles when necessary. I cannot be sure, but I think COI is not my strong area since I have never come across them, though I understand the hallmarks of COI edits listed at that page. I am also confused about G1, A1 and A3, when really to tag them? I cannot say much about page curation tool, since I have not come across it. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I have stated what I think :) Knightrises10 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have watchlisted this page and recommend you do the same. Your AfD log does looks strong. It's also great to have more expertise around the topics you've been involved in. As for the CSD tags you mentioned - they're incredibly rare these days because we no longer allow new editors to create articles in the mainspace, they have to create it in Draft and be approved by AfC. A1 & G1 are ones where you'll know it if you see it - we're talking complete gibberish or English sentences that go nowhere and don't connect to each other. A3 is also easy to spot, a page is blank or only has external links or is really a talk page,  but waiting is often necessary here to make sure you don't speedy delete too fast before they can add in content that would keep it from being A3. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in my watchlist. I now I understand about those criterias. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So I've put three drafts as "under review" that I thought we could do together. I've chosen them semi at random so I don't know what we'll find. So go through and record your thoughts below about what you notice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Just pinging you to confirm if you know that I have left a message at that user's talk page. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw you'd done some work yesterday Knightrises but I wasn't on much and got caught up in something else for the limited time I did spend. I had just clicked back here at the same time you pinged so export more from me soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, and no problem if you are busy :) Knightrises10 (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Knight - a couple ways we can go. SmokeyJoe has indicated you might be ready (or are close to being ready) for the reviewer PERM. However, from what I see there I think if most admin took a look at you right now they would probably not yet grant it to you. So more work ahead for us. We haven't yet touched upon several of the topics on the Syllabus at WP:NPP/S. So we can do a few things. We can jointly patrol some drafts, we can jointly patrol some new pages (I'd ask you to find 5 pages in the queue and go through the reviewing steps doing everything but marking it as reviewed which you obviously can't do), or we can ask again about getting you accepted to do some AfC review on your own with me watching and giving you feedback. What do you want to do next? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's up to you :-) What do you think I should do? Knightrises10 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's do a few more drafts together (I've put three more below) to help work for you to get OK'ed for AfC which will help you get the reviewer PERM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Done :-) Knightrises10 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked in with the admin who denied your AfC request last time and he said you could apply without prejudice again at Afc. Do you feel ready to do so? If so you should make the request and mention you're working with me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Requested :-) Knightrises10 (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It can take days for an admin to accept the request, right? Knightrises10 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it can. Weekends are also particularly slow times in general for Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * So I have beem made the Afc reviewer and I have reviewed a few submissions. Can you take a look and give me a feedback? Correct me if I went wrong somewhere :-) One of them seemed to be promotional, i tagged it with G11 and it has been deleted.Knightrises10 (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Should I try to find out the drafts reviewed by me, from my edit history and put them here? Knightrises10 (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be great. Good job with the G11. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So here are they:-


 * Draft:Swani Zabayeer
 * There's enough going on here that I don't want to spend loads of time looking but my fast assessment is that you got this right.
 * Draft:Noma Copley
 * Draft:Holocube North America
 * Draft:Holocube North America


 * Draft:Lifestyle Couriers Forum
 * Draft:Jadranka Pejanović
 * Done correctly but I would have kept the conversation at your talk page rather than forking it to theirs.
 * Draft:Mail Handling International
 * Draft:Stevi Item
 * Draft:Flávio Bolsonaro
 * 👍 - glad you noted the low bar of notability generally accepted for elected officials
 * Draft:Other People's Stuff Knightrises10 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gonzalo Ávila Gordón
 * I don't think this is a correct accept as they have not yet played for the senior team AND the sourcing is only the club's website.
 * Draft:Other People's Stuff Knightrises10 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gonzalo Ávila Gordón
 * I don't think this is a correct accept as they have not yet played for the senior team AND the sourcing is only the club's website.
 * I don't think this is a correct accept as they have not yet played for the senior team AND the sourcing is only the club's website.

Good job with that batch. For Holocube, Lifestyle Couriers, Pejanovic, and Other People's Stuff if those had been NPP rather than AfC how would you have handled? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have nominated them for Afd. As for Holocube and Lifestyle Couriers, I might have first tagged them with G11, as they also seem a bit promotional. Only if rejected, I would have nominated them for Afd too.
 * When you rejected it Holocube was an A7 not G11 - it was only after your AfC rejection that it became promotional. Yes for the G11 on LFC. Other People's should have been draftified or made into a redirect - it's likely that the album will be notable once released but that's not for another 6 weeks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As for Gonzalo Ávila Gordón,I accepted this since the player has been called to the senior team already and will be playing matches soon. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Except Gordon hasn't played yet. He presumably will but maybe he suffers a career ending injury in training tomorrow. Since we have WP:NODEADLINE I'd have probably let that one sit in the AfC queue until he had an actual appearance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Will remember this next time . What should I do next? Knightrises10 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would keep doing AfCs for a bit. Right now you need to build-up a track record. You can feel free to come here with questions or to have me look over any that you think are particularly tricky at any point. After a couple months of you participating at AfC I think we could take stock of where you're at and see what the right next steps would be. Does that sound OK? I know you're eager, which I love, and I'm happy that you are finding ways to help improve the encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll continue :-) Although I won't be active in mid October. After each draft reviewed, should I also place it here? Knightrises10 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to place them here if you'd like. No worries about the break. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The subject Draft:Okey Mbonu looks notable, what do you think? Has had coverage in some reliable sources, including Guardian.Knightrises10 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC).
 * The sources are basically him talking on TV or being quoted in a newspaper. Most of what is claimed is not actually backed up by RS. This all is a problem. On the plus side, his run for Presidency could lend him notability but it doesn't seem like it's gotten much traction to date. I would reject as of now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Can you provide me a short feedback on how am I doing?  Knightrises10   talk   18:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * {[re|Knightrises10}} I looked at your last 5 AfCs. I agree with your judgement on the two you accepted. I also agree with your three declines but Draft:The Memets had a Copyvio which was fairly obvious. I found it by Googling the words listed and got . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok :-) Will take more care about copyvios. Knightrises10   talk   20:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is going to be a built-in COPYVIO notice incorporated to the Special:NewPagesFeed very soon which should be helpful in this way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Dog Star
The draft is poorly sourced. Only one reliable source, that too is actually about the death of the author. Wikipedia cannot be sourced. I think it should be rejected with the reason of not passing WP:BK.
 * So at New Page Patrol we assess the notability of the title. Except in certain circumstances, like WP:BLP, whether it has reliable sourcing or not does not determine our actions. Instead what should determine our actions is whether the topic itself is notable. If it's notable then we mark as patrolled, adding tags as appropriate. If it's not notable our responsibility is to nominate it for deletion. But since there is a WP:BEFORE responsibility for AfD if there's sourcing that exists and it's not in the article that show notability, the topic is still notable and thus should be reviewed (in most circumstances). A book from the 1950s is obviously harder to assess than one that's more recent. You're correct that WP:BK (or my preferred shortcut WP:NBOOK) is the right standard. A book can be notable if it has been reviewed substantially - but I agree with your assessment that the Oyster Bay review is not RS. Books are a professional area for me so I can more easily tap into stuff than the average person but when I did a Google search with "the dog star" windham "review" (and the quotes around review are important) I found more than enough to satisify criteria 1. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Dr. Kou Yang Professor "Emeritus of CSU Stanislaus"
Draft reads "essay-like". Also it doesn't pass WP:GNG as notability is not satisfied. Unreliable sources.
 * There's an a big issue here which needs addressing - this name is not MOS compliant. Where would you move this page? This page, which I chose because of the bad title, actually offers not only a GNG claim but also subject specific notability claims. How do you evaluate those? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes! The page should be moved simply to Kou Yang or Dr. Kou Yang. The user should be asked to rearrange the article properly, and also cite more reliable sources since at the moment it doesn't seem the subject passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. Knightrises10 (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * So I have clearly re-read the draft and according to it, the subject has been part of a large number of researches and has written many journals. So, it seems it passes notability. So the draft can be cleaned-up, and can be tagged for "needing additional sources". Knightrises10 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. If this were a new page, I agree that the correct action would be to move it to its correct name, which is Kou Yang, we never put in titles; if there was another Kou Yang this articles correct title would be Kou Yang (professor). Then you'd tag it with ideally delete the first sentence, adding bold to Kou Yang (1954-) is Professor Emeritus of California State University, Stanislaus, where he taught Ethnic Studies from 1998 to 2013. to make it comply with MOS:FIRST,  do some more wiki formatting clean-up, perhaps adding another clean-up type tag, and mark it as patrolled. So given this why did I decline the draft? Because the editor had a conflict of interest which they noted on the talk page which let's AfC hold a little closer to the must have reliable sources line than what you can do at NPP. But they also asked for help. Helping new editors is an important part of new page patrol in my view. Would you like to take a shot at going to that user's talk page and trying to help answer their questions? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Special Olympics Bangladesh
The last part of the draft makes it look like being promotional. So it can be rejected and speedily deleted. Also, not enough sources to prove notability. I think it doesn't pass WP:ORG.
 * Oh yeah so much is wrong with this article. Your assessment that there are issues here more important than notability is right. I have gone ahead and put a G11 tag on it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Now I know, how to assess the notability. Knightrises10 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad you feel like you're learning. You definitely have some strengths right now. Do you feel ready to try and help Sunwukong68? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will. But I am getting offline since I will be at school now. Can I continue afterwards? And should I explain him like how should he improve the draft? Knightrises10 (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So I have tried to help the user as you can see here. I hope I have explained him everything correct :). Knightrises10 (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Knight you definitely strike a helpful informed tone which I think is very important in these kinds of communications. Good concise job of explaining about the image. As for COI, I think the reality is slightly more nuanced. First a COI editor can create the article, as Sunwukong68 has done, but disclosure is necessary. In this case the talk page comment is likely sufficient for that disclosure, though ideally we go for a template as noted here. I'll ask for permission to add this template for them if it seems like they need the help. As for editing once it reaches mainspace, certain edits are OK (obvious BLP violations; outright vandalism), but most changes should really be done as requested edits on the talk page. I tend to simplify that nuance for less experienced editors by saying something along the lines of "Once the draft is accepted and made an "official" article, in most cases you should request changes on the talk page rather than doing it yourself. While it's still a draft it is fine for you to continue working on it." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that COI editor can create an article as I said, "although it is discouraged, you can continue with it as long as you show neutral point of view". But next time, I will try to explain in a better way as you told :-) Knightrises10 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The CEO Magazine India

 * This time did WP:BEFORE and didn't find any source. In the draft, all sources are unreliable self-published ones, while most of them are about the rankings given by the magazine. So, notability is not passed, fails WP:NMEDIA so should be rejected I think. On closely noticing, the magazine is mentioned by the sites of the subjects who were ranked. For example, essindia.com published that they were ranked by CEO magazine.
 * So if you found this while doing NPP what what would you do? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Will reject the draft, with the reason that it needs to cite reliable sources. It might feel promotional, but I don't think that were the intentions. Knightrises10 (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. Rejecting the draft is clear. Let's pretend this was in mainspace (instead of being a draft). What would your next step be then if you found this while doing new page patrol? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would nominate it for Afd. Knightrises10 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. I'm aggressive with the G11 tag especially with for profit companies so I would probably try that (phrases like "well-known" "influential and impactive magazine in the community of top level business executives"). However deciding to go to AfD is what many would do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh. Yes, we can go for G11 too. :-) Knightrises10 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * G11 or AfD here is personal preference. Nothing wrong with saying AfD and it is the more conservative option which many prefer for deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Smith Brothers Farms
As far as I can say, the subject of this article looks notable. As it has been mentioned by some reliable sources like Seattle Times.
 * I agree. Two significant pieces of coverage (LA Times and Settle Times) from reliable independent secondary sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Munthiri Kaadu

 * The film seems to fail WP:NFILM. No reliable source; only unreliable ones. On Google search, I didn't find any review from a nationally known critic, and I cannot find if the film received any award. Also, draft has grammatical errors, which can be corrected though. No news source has mentioned it.
 * Agreed. So again if this were in mainspace instead of being a draft, what would your next step be? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late reply. I would nominate it for Afd. Knightrises10 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)