User:Rosguill/HeartGlow30797 NPPSCHOOL

Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! 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 Notability as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

This page will be built up over your time in the School, 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.
 * How to use this page

If both the instructor and student make completing the course curriculum a top priority, it will generally take around a month to go through the entirety of the curriculum. This pace is not required or necessarily expected, but rather is provided in order to give participants an idea of what to expect. It can also be worth stressing early on NPP's focus on "quality not quantity" so there should not be a rush to complete assignments.

Notability
 PART 1 

Questions
✅  Heart  (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC) In your own words, how is notability defined on Wikipedia?
 * Question 1
 * An article must meet the general notability guidelines and not be included in what Wikipedia is not in order to be considered notable.  Heart  (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is correct, but it's not quite the answer I was looking for. I'll rephrase: Without mentioning specific Wikipedia guidelines, what does "being notable" mean is true about the subject's presence in the real world? signed,Rosguill talk 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused what you are asking. Notability about something means it is prevalent and would often get looked up.  Heart  (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The answer I was looking for is that notability is a measure of the extent to which a topic has been covered in reliable sources, establishing it as a subject worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. signed,Rosguill talk 21:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Would step by step instructions on "How to change a car tire" be considered a notable topic in Wikipedia? Why or why not?
 * Question 2
 * No, it falls under WP:NOTGUIDE, and therefore is not considered notable.  Heart  (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

What are the differences between the WP:GNG and the subject-specific notability guidelines? How do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?
 * Question 3
 * An article must always meet the general notability guidelines. However, SNG can be further be provided in order to eliminate non-notable subjects that meet GNG.  Heart  (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌, not quite, although it is worth noting that the exact relationship between GNG and SNGs is controversial. While it is true that all article subjects are expected to meet GNG, failing to meet a relevant SNG is generally not a reason to delete an article; once a subject meets GNG, it's in the clear (although there are a few exceptions in the form of a few SNGs that stipulate additional restrictions on how you should assess GNG. My general recommendation for how to approach this when patrolling articles is to treat SNGs as a sort of "shortcut" to meeting GNG; their criteria are (in theory) formulated such that a subject that meets an SNG is highly likely to meet the GNG. While in practice some SNG are more true to this purpose than others, our role when patrolling pages is to enforce the existing community consensus, so you don't need to worry, for example, about WP:NFOOTY articles falling short of GNG if you don't want to get involved in that perennial dispute. We'll be analyzing the role of SNGs more deeply in the next few questions. signed,Rosguill talk 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it :D.  Heart  (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Subject-specific notability guidelines
✅ Done.  Heart  (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC) 1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines) into the following three categories ✅  Heart  (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Primarily additional criteria that are likely to indicate notability
 * Academics ✅
 * Astronomical objects ✅
 * Books ✅
 * Geographical features ✅
 * People ✅
 * Sports ✅

Primarily additional considerations that define or restrict the nature of coverage or sources required
 * Events ✅
 * Music ❌ while the guideline places restrictions on the nature of coverage necessary for a member of a band to be considered notable independently of the band, it also provides a lot of type-1 criteria for establishing the notability of songs, albums and bands, making this guideline type-3 overall.
 * Numbers, this guideline is honestly almost entirely redundant with GNG (although it expresses the criteria in a way that may be more easily understood by people with an academic background in math). I usually place it in category 3, but it's quite a weak guideline that doesn't see much use.
 * Organization and companies ✅

Even mix of the previous two categories
 * Films ✅
 * Web ❌, this is another guideline that is largely redundant with GNG; the only additional caveat that it adds is the weak provision that award-winning websites are likely notable, which makes it more of a type-1 guideline. Like the numbers guideline, this guideline doesn't see much use, and IMO the most useful information that it includes are the suggestions of what to do when a web subject is not notable.

2. Virtually all SNGs that provide additional notability criteria specify that these criteria may indicate that the subject meets notability guidelines. How would you interpret this caveat as a new page reviewer? ✅  Heart  (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, SNGs provide additional criteria that can be used to decide whether or not a subject is noteworthy. If it meets SNGs, then it is safe to assume that GNG is met as well. However, I would still check to see if significant coverage of the subject still exists and then pass it.  Heart  (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Scenarios
For scenarios 1-6 review just based on "subject notability guidelines" (SNG) "alone" for sake of the exercise. Do not consider any sources or other policies. Please answer if the subject meets the SNG guidelines based on the given content below, and specify which notability criteria they meet or fail. ✅ Done.  Heart  (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC) An editor creates an article about "2028 Summer Olympics" without providing any sources
 * Scenario 1
 * I would not delete since sources exist, but I would not pass it as it fails the basic need for sources. ✅  Heart  (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, now here's a tricky follow up question that we haven't explicitly covered yet: What should you do if you see a new article creation for say, 2044 Summer Olympics with no references? signed,Rosguill talk 17:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would redirect to Olympics or Summer Olympics per Notability (events). ✅ Done.  Heart  (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Scenario 2
 * SNG: Events  Heart  (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A New York city based 2020 start up software company, specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.
 * Delete, per WP:ORG, trivial coverage. ✅  Heart  (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * SNG: Organizations  Heart  (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)



Movsar Evloev who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 12-0.
 * Scenario 3
 * Totally not familiar with this subject. One, UFC is a top tier MMA organization, so he passes criteria one. For criteria three, he fails on fight matrix, but I'm not sure on sherdog. As for criteria two, I'm unsure what the "highest title" in UFC is, UFC championship. So I am inclined to fail, but I would have to look more into the sources to confirm. ✅  Heart  (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * SNG: Sports, specifically mixed martial arts  Heart  (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , passing criteria 1 is enough to meet the guideline. signed,Rosguill talk 17:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

An upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, which will be in production in January 2021 and to be released on August 2021 in the cinemas.
 * Scenario 4
 * If the film is confirmed by reliable sources, it passes the first criteria. It is already in production, so it passes criteria two. However, the caveat at the end fails it, UNLESS it is a high profile film confirmed by multiple sources. ✅  Heart  (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * SNG: Film  Heart  (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2020 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy.
 * Scenario 5
 * The election is in the past, so if he won, then yes, he should have an article. If not, then it depends on the candidate if he has more press coverage nationally, besides the local news. ✅  Heart  (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * SNG: People  Heart  (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify.
 * Scenario 6
 * On first read, fail. It probably has no sources, so it automatically fails criteria one. Probably has not charted, fails criteria two, etc. It fails. ✅  Heart  (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * SNG: Music  Heart  (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Background for trainees

 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, claims made in articles 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. WP:NPPSG may be a useful reference for looking up the reliability of a source that has been discussed before on Wikipedia.


 * You can contact WP:RX if you could not find the sources yourself either on the web due to paywalls or offline-only sources.

Exercises
✅ Done.  Heart  (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

✅ Done.  Heart  (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC) ✅  Heart  (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1.

✅  Heart  (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2.


 * In the tables below, please 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" for each source.

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.
 * 3


 * Could not access the third source.  Heart  (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, does this link work for you? signed,Rosguill talk 17:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope
 * Now I'm getting a 503 error, which suggests a problem on their end. I would come back to this later. signed,Rosguill talk 18:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅  Heart  (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 05:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

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.
 * 4

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.


 * ✅  Heart  (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 05:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 5



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.


 * ✅  Heart  (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 05:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Questions
✅ Done.  Heart  (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Now that we've covered sources, can you apply your knowledge of GNG and SNGs? For each of the above subjects assessed in the previous section, please identify whether they meet notability guidelines (and how/why), based solely on the sources included on this page (i.e. don't go looking for more sources)
 * Question 8

✅  Heart  (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Frank Lloyd Wright:, meets WP:GNG.
 * 2) Jordan Lennon:, none of them are considered reliable sources.
 * 3) Sonny Bill Williams:, has a reliable source and meets WP:NRU.
 * ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 05:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Please explain in your own words why claims need to be verified?
 * Question 9
 * So the reader can ensure accuracy in their reading of Wikipedia. ✅  Heart  (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 05:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Could we cite Wikipedia as a source? and why?
 * Question 10
 * No because it is crowdsourced. ✅  Heart  (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 05:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Give an example of a source that is reliable but not independent of a subject, and explain why.
 * Question 11
 * CNN commenting on the firing of Rick Santorum. A proven reliable source, but is involved with the subject. ✅  Heart  (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 05:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Give an example of a source that is independent but not reliable and explain why.
 * Question 12
 * My diary entry on the firing of Rick Santorum. Nothing I say is verifiable, but I have no relation to Rick Santorum (or do I). ✅  Heart  (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Two unprompted Rick Santorum answers in a row truly raises suspicions. ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 05:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Describe the steps you should take when assessing whether an unfamiliar source is reliable.
 * Question 13
 * I usually look at the about section of the website to find any information about the publisher and authors. I would usually always look up the publisher to see if there are any issues found with it, and if it is used by others. ✅  Heart  (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating sources in the wild
Without consulting any existing Wikipedia consensuses, such as those listed at WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG or WP:RSN, assess whether the following sources are reliable. You may refer to Wikipedia articles for the publications if they exist. Be specific as to how and why you came to your conclusions. Sources are often reliable for some content and unreliable for other content: identify what sorts of articles may have reliable and unreliable coverage from a given source, and consider using examples from their website to illustrate your points. Feel free to offer topic-scoped assessments such as "likely reliable for claims related to pop culture" or "reliable for non-political subject matter". For sources in languages that you can't read, please use Google Translate to evaluate the source to the best of your ability.

✅ Done.  Heart  (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 14 The Moscow Times
 * Reliable.  Heart  (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅  Heart  (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The very fact that this article is published is good reason to believe this source is reliable. It presents unbiased stories to the reader to consume and is generally reliable when pulling information from.  Heart  (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌, reliability can't be inferred simply by looking at editorial line, although that is part of the process. You need to look at information about the publication's editorial processes, and usage by independent RS. The gold standard would be frequent citations in peer-reviewed academic publications, although usage by top-tier news organizations is also acceptable evidence. For publications too small to have a discernible 3rd party usage footprint, look at the About Us page and editorial disclosure practices on individual articles. Try again. signed,Rosguill talk 20:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. The Moscow Times is a publication with "all editorial decisions are made independently by our team of editors and reporters, a practice that has been in place since the publication was founded in 1992" according to their About Us Page. I couldn't find many articles peer-reviewing it per se, but it has been the center of attention for being blocked by Russia. Hopefully this is enough reasoning.  Heart  (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, in the absence of evidence of unreliability, their public editorial policy is a sign of reliability. The publication's history as a free newspaper is a bit of a red flag, but isn't in itself evidence of unreliability. This source can be considered reliable for uncontroversial topics, but is inferior to better-established reliable sources for controversial matters.


 * 15 USA Today
 * Reliable.  Heart  (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅  Heart  (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * USA today is a reliable source as it is good in collecting sources and creating a coherant story that relies on the story and presents unbiased news, such as this article that uses outside sources such as AP, and quotes from Zelenskyy to tell the story.  Heart  (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌, for the same reasons as #14, try again. signed,Rosguill talk 20:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is not much in their About page that indicates anything about their journaling practices, nor can I find how they have been peer reviewed. I have difficulty in understanding finding whether a source has been peer-reviewed, but it has also garnered attention from its ever expanding journalism reach.  Heart  (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , so, you're not supposed to be looking for peer-review of USA Today (that's not really a thing), you're looking for coverage of USA Today, or (uncritical) citations to USA Today in peer-reviewed literature. The way to look for this would be to search for "USA Today" in Google Scholar: I was able to quickly find this paper, which cites USA Today uncritically for their coverage of mass killings in the US, this paper, which analyzes the USA Today's coverage and briefly provides an analysis of its position in the US news market, and this, a somewhat outdated but nevertheless illustrative writeup analyzing the history, reputation and trajectory of the source. Alternatively, if you search "USA Today" -usatoday.com on Google or Google News, you'll get results of other websites mentioning USA Today, which will typically be results of said sources citing USA Today. signed,Rosguill talk 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This article clearly shows how the newspaper consistantly represents the mainstream media.  Heart  (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think multiple such sources would be needed to demonstrate that it is consistently representative of US mainstream media, but yes this is the kind of coverage that demonstrates notability. signed,Rosguill talk 14:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 16 The Hindu
 * Reliable.  Heart  (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅  Heart  (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Hindu is a reliable source as it is unbiased in nature and has a credible group of journalists working on the stories that they produce.  Heart  (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and how do you know that it has a credible group of journalists? signed,Rosguill talk 20:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Their about us page says that "The Hindu's independent editorial stand and its reliable and balanced presentation of the news have over the years, won for it the serious attention and regard of the people who matter in India and abroad."  Heart  (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that doesn't tell us very much--it's better than an About us page describing them as a pay-for-play venue, but doesn't give us much meaningful information. When we're looking at an About Us page, the strongest signs of reliability are a clearly-professional masthead (which lets us know that this is a reputable enough publication to sustain it as a professional enterprise, and that the writers and editors for the publication are proud to be associated with it publicly) or verifiable claims about its reputation (e.g. awards, notes about citations in more prominent publications). If we can't get that information from the About Us page, we need to rely on coverage in other sources. Try searching "The Hindu" "newspaper" on Google scholar, and "The Hindu" -thehindu.com on Google or Google News and see if you can find more evidence along the lines of what I laid out under USA Today. signed,Rosguill talk 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would this article be sufficient enough of an example? It shows how it is reliable as it is cited in a scholarly medical journal.  Heart  (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just seeing a 1-page abstract that doesn't mention The Hindu. Were you able to access a more complete article? signed,Rosguill talk 14:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 17 Anadolu Agency
 * Only reliable for non-political subject matters seeing as this is a state-run news agency.  Heart  (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅  Heart  (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Some state-backed news agencies, such as the BBC, Al-Jazeera, NPR and ARD, have strong reputations of reliability. Others, such as RT and Telesur, are totally unreliable, and still others, such as TASS and Xinhua, are conditionally reliable as publications that reliably follow their government's official political line but can generally be trusted to not report outright lies. Where does AA fall? signed,Rosguill talk 20:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , Be specific as to how and why you came to your conclusions. signed,Rosguill talk 15:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , a simple Wikipedia search shows that the site is state-run, meaning by the gov. Meaning, that any political subject could show bias.  Heart  (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , my comment was regarding all of the sources in this section, not just Anadolu Agenncy. signed,Rosguill talk 14:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅  Heart  (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Help needed.  Heart  (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope this time's the charm!  Heart  (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)