User:Rosguill/The4lines 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.

Notability
 PART 1 

Questions
In your own words, how is notability defined on Wikipedia?
 * Question 1


 * It’s how much something something has been written in/on reliable sources. Like a topic may of been written a lot, but only in unreliable sources so it is not notable. And let’s say a another topic Is written a lot about but this time with reliable sources so it means it is notable. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 19:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is a decent general description, but since you focused on source reliability, it's also worth noting that sources are required to be independent and secondary as well; there are times when reliable sources will be available, but they will not be both secondary and independent as well. signed,Rosguill talk 19:36, 11 May 2020 (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
 * Many reliable sources may if done how to change a car tire, but under WP:NOTMANUAL no it’s not notable in Wikipedia. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 19:06, 11 May 2020 (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
 * GNG are the standard guidelines for any article/draft on Wikipedia. While subject specific are more guidelines for a specific topic. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 19:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's say that we have an article that meets a subject-specific notability guideline. Should we still evaluate whether it meets GNG? What should our final notability decision be? signed,Rosguill talk 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes we do check it for GNG, If it meets the GNG then it meets the notability standard. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 20:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And how should we proceed if GNG is met but a relevant SNG is not? Or if an SNG is met but GNG is not? signed,Rosguill talk 20:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We should fix it. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 20:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , a noble suggestion, but incorrect. Generally speaking, any article that meets GNG has passed its notability test, regardless of what SNG say. There's some further considerations for articles that pass SNGs but not GNG that we'll revisit in a bit once you've studied SNGs a bit more. signed,Rosguill talk 20:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will try to learn more about SNG. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 19:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , graded the first two, asked a clarifying follow up question for the third one. I'd also suggest that you slow down a bit to at least proofread your responses. In this case it was fairly easy to tell what you meant to say, but when communicating with editors while doing page reviews you need to be careful to communicate clearly. signed,Rosguill talk 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, got the other question. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 20:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Subject-specific notability guidelines
1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at WP:SNG) into the following three categories

Primarily additional criteria that are likely to indicate notability
 * Notability (academics)
 * Notability (astronomical objects)
 * Notability (books)
 * Notability (geographic features)
 * Notability (people)
 * Notability_(sports)

Primarily additional considerations that define or restrict the nature of coverage or sources required
 * Notability (organizations and companies)
 * Notability (numbers) some positive criteria too, but you're right that this is mostly restrictions
 * Notability (events)

Even mix of the previous two categories
 * Notability (films)
 * Notability (music)
 * Notability (web)

Done. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 01:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

, excellent work. Now, having studied the SNGs in greater detail, please answer the following question. signed,Rosguill talk 02:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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?
 * All article are to met GNG, so SNGs is a shortcut to GNGs. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , not quite the answer I was looking for. The way I would interpret the above disclaimer is that meeting an SNG is a strong signal of notability, but ultimately it needs to be assessed alongside other evidence of notability in a holistic manner. Additionally, not all SNGs are created equal: most of NSPORTS, for instance, offers clear pass/fail tests as to whether a subject meets the SNG. WP:NACTOR, on the other hand, includes subjective criteria, such as having played multiple major roles in notable works––what is a major role? Assessments of GNG are similarly fuzzy: is a given source's coverage really significant? What if we have only one source, but it is so deep and comprehensive in its coverage that you could easily write an article with information from it? In practice, if an SNG is met, you should almost always approve the article (assuming that it otherwise complies with policy). For articles that barely meet an SNG, or are borderline, consider the strength of available sources and the likelihood that additional sources are available. Finally, for articles that meet an SNG but have virtually no coverage in reliable sources, it may not be enough to establish notability. signed,Rosguill talk 03:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:47, 12 May 2020 (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.

An editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2020 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why?
 * Scenario 1
 * Under Notability (events) it could be notable as it has been announced but if it has no sources I doubt that we can't put any sources.
 * , SNGs are dependent on sources, so this one doesn't meet the SNG on a technicality. Can you guess what the appropriate course of action is for an article about a single instance of a future event that is not yet notable? signed,Rosguill talk 17:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominate for CSD? That what I think. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 17:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. In fact, the correct move doesn't involve deletion at all. The standard practice for non-notable instances of a notable event (regardless of whether they're future or past) is to convert the article into a redirect pointing at the article about the main event. So in this case, you would make it a redirect pointing to Summer Olympics. CSDs are only used for the most clear-cut, egregious violations of policy. signed,Rosguill talk 18:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A New York city based 2020 start up software company, specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.
 * Scenario 2
 * As stated in Notability (organizations and companies) if the company has revived enough reliable coverage it could be notable, as I am not seeing any thing saying about investors funds. We could go to wp:CORPDEPTH for the sake that we have coverage. If it meets all of this then it is notable.
 * you kinda hedged your response on this one. Based on the provided information, there is no evidence that the subject is notable. Coverage of investor funding is usually WP:ROUTINE and does not count towards meeting WP:NCORP. signed,Rosguill talk 17:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Movsar Evloev who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 12-0.
 * Scenario 3
 * It says at wp:NMMA that a martial artist is consider notable when they have fought at least three professional for a top tier MMA organization. After doing looking him up he has only done 2 top tier fights, which means that he is not notable enough for wikipedia.

An upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, was reported will be in production in December 2019 and to be released on August 2020 in the cinemas.
 * Scenario 4
 * Not notable for wikipedia yet. Unrelated films can only be included when there is reliable sources saying that the main photography has started.

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
 * Not notable, as he has not held office before. Also it’s not like he is a major local politician either.

A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify.
 * Scenario 6
 * Under the criteria at wp:ENT no he is not notable.

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , good work, I have one follow up question for scenario 1, after which you can move on to the next section. signed,Rosguill talk 17:43, 12 May 2020 (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.


 * 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

 * 1.

Done, and for the follow up question that makes sense. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 18:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 2.

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 19:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , looks good. Next section below. signed,Rosguill talk 20:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Source assessment practice

 * 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.
 * 4

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.
 * 5

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.


 * 6



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.

–– not sure why you weren't able to access the Daily Mail source, but at any rate you should be aware that the source is notoriously unreliable, regardless of whatever may be included in the article. I think your assessments of the Allblacks and NZ Herald content are accurate, but I would consider the Sydney Morning Herald's coverage to be significant: in between the interview snippets, the article describes Williams' play style and family background to a suitable level of depth. signed,Rosguill talk 19:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 18:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * graded, see comments above and more questions below. signed,Rosguill talk 19:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 7

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

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

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


 * ❌, this is primary source footage of Petraeus being sworn in. A better source of coverage would be an article reporting that he was sworn in. As such, while it is reliable and independent, it is not significant coverage (I also wouldn't describe CNN as independent from anything; no source is independent in all cases, although in this case it is sufficiently independent).
 * ❌, I'm not sure I see what made you think that this source was very opinionated. It includes some quotes from involved individuals, but otherwise includes a largely neutral and factual report of events. Opinionated sources are also sometimes usable and can contribute toward meeting GNG (see WP:BIASED).
 * 1) not 100% sure what you meant by No as there is not sources to check., but your assessment of the source's quality is correct.
 * , in this case, because the interview is a pure Q&A format, it is not independent of the subject. Interviews are only considered to have independent coverage if there is either a section of the article that includes independent analysis of the subject, which this one does not. Note as well that the article has very little information about Petraeus, as opposed to information about Petraeus's perspectives on US intervention in Iraq
 * 1) signed,Rosguill talk 17:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , in this case, because the interview is a pure Q&A format, it is not independent of the subject. Interviews are only considered to have independent coverage if there is either a section of the article that includes independent analysis of the subject, which this one does not. Note as well that the article has very little information about Petraeus, as opposed to information about Petraeus's perspectives on US intervention in Iraq
 * 1) signed,Rosguill talk 17:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

-


 * 8

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

signed,Rosguill talk 17:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , although I'm not sure that I'd agree that the Instagram has significant coverage––photos with brief captions are generally not considered to be significant

- Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 17:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , pretty good overall. Comments above and more questions below. signed,Rosguill talk 17:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional questions
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


 * 1) Frank Lloyd Wright Yes as 3/4 sources are good.
 * 2) Jordan Lennon No, as most sources fail GNG
 * 3) Sonny Bill Williams Nope as only 1 source is good.
 * 4) David Petraeus Yep, even if he has some bad sources the good sources outweigh it.
 * 5) Martina Hingis Yes, as most sources are good.


 * – you're right that Wright, Petraeus, and Hingis meet GNG as written and that Lennon does not. However, Sonny Bill Williams meets our SNG for rugby union players, WP:NRU. Additionally, while Williams does not strictly meet GNG in this paragraph, given the coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald, I would consider him to be a shoo-in for WP:NPOSSIBLE if I saw an article that looked like this in the wild (although I acknowledge that this is a gray area for this question, as the question said not to look for more sources). Finally, I just want to clarify that when evaluating notability, you're not weighing "good sources" vs "bad sources"; an article could be 90% garbage sources, but if the last 10% are enough to establish notability on their own, then it still meets GNG. signed,Rosguill talk 17:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Please explain in your own words why claims need to be verified?
 * Question 9

Because clams can be made up easily, and if we put those clams without verifying them, we would be putting false info on the wiki.
 * , although some editors might look at you funny if you refer to Wikipedia (or English Wikipedia) as "the wiki". signed,Rosguill talk 17:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Could we cite Wikipedia as a source? and why? No under Reliable sources we generally Don’t site wikipedia as a source.
 * Question 10
 * Could you clarify why in your own words, other than just citing the relevant policy? signed,Rosguill talk 17:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Becuase we don't generally don't add user generated sources on the Wikipedia

Give an example of a source that is reliable but not independent of a subject, and explain why.
 * Question 11

https://www.pbs.org/ Because they are reliable but they conduct their own interviews, etc.
 * A source can only be independent or not-independent in a specific context. I agree that PBS sometimes publishes non-independent coverage, but I'd like you to give a more specific example. signed,Rosguill talk 17:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A Press Release, as Most of them are affiliated by the subject themselves. But most of them have good info and are reliable.
 * ❌ While some press releases may be reliable, it's not accurate to say that most are reliable. A better example would have been a profile of a professor hosted by the university that employs them. signed,Rosguill talk 16:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Give an example of a source that is independent source but not reliable and explain why. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7505117/2019-Rugby-World-Cup-Sonny-Bill-Williams-expecting-fourth-child.html As explained in sonny Williams.
 * Question 12
 * Ok, now come up with one that isn't an example that I already explained to you. signed,Rosguill talk 17:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Blogs, as most of them are indpendent, they don't check facts and they are unreliable.

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's some follow up questions for questions 10, 11 and 12 signed,Rosguill talk 17:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Think I got them all. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * more questions below. signed,Rosguill talk 16:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Article titles

 * Please read WP:TITLE and answer the questions below


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

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

Answer: We would change it to Hannibal, Becuase that’s how most sources address him like. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

--


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

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

Answer: Nope, Under WP:COMMONNAME we don’t have to change it, as it is the most recognizable name of this person. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , good work, more below. signed,Rosguill talk 17:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

 * Please read WP:BLP and answer the questions below.


 * 3. Please explain if the content of the below text is acceptable for inclusion and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

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

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

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

Answer: The last paragraph is unacceptable, as it is not backed up by any good sources. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 17:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – note that TMZ and RT International are not great sources (an RSN discussion right now looks like it may end up deprecating RT)--if the assault-related claims had only been cited to such sources, it would likely be a BLP violation as well. However, the presence of ESPN and Fox News coverage is enough to justify inclusion. signed,Rosguill talk 18:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

--


 * 4. Please explain if the content of the below text is acceptable for inclusion and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

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

Answer: Under wp:BLPPRIVACY articles should not have phone numbers nor addresses. Also they are the White House number and address. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 17:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 17:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , great, more questions below. signed,Rosguill talk 18:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Images copyright

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


 * 5. Could this image-1 be uploaded into Main Page  and used in Wikipedia? and Why.

Answer- Explanation: Yes it is becuase it is from the U.S Gov. so it is not eligible for copyright.

Answer - link/guideline: Image_use_policy%23Public_domain


 * 6. Could [this image-2] be uploaded  into Main Page and used in Wikipedia? and Why.

Answer- Explanation: It is in the pubic domain.

Answer - link/guideline: Image_use_policy%23Free_licenses


 * 7. Could this image-3 be uploaded into Main Page and used in Wikipedia?

Answer- Explanation: We would check the original site. Even though it is on commons.

Answer - link/guideline: Image_use_policy%23Free_licenses
 * you're not entirely wrong, but in this case the information filed at Commons establishes that the image has been released under a compatible license signed,Rosguill talk 20:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 8. Could this image-4 be uploaded  into Main Page and used in Wikipedia? and Why.

Answer- Explanation: Probably a non free image. We would check the site.

Answer -link/guideline: Image_use_policy
 * , ok check the site and report your assessment of whether this is a usable image or not. signed,Rosguill talk 20:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Its non free, so copyright does apply. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 23:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Self taken ones? I’m not sure Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 19:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 9 Certain types of images are a giveaway of COI and/or paid editing, despite not being direct violations of our image policies. Can you guess what kinds of images these are?
 * Close. In particular, professional head shots are often signs of paid/COI editing, especially if the image is claimed as own work. Do note that while claiming an image as "own work" is often enough of a reason to follow up with a COI user warning on the editor's talk page, new editors often claim images that they do not own as own work by accident. Check to make sure that the image isn't copied from somewhere else online by using a reverse image search such as . signed,Rosguill talk 20:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 19:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Fixed, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 23:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

--

Neutral point of view
Please read WP:NPOV and MOS:PUFF. Point out the WP:NPOV words/pharses and rewrite the paragraph in Questions 9& 10 from a neutral point of view.

Answer: She is a boxer who turned Pro at the age of 19 after winning one flight on December 14, 2013. The fight lasted only 20 seconds. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 23:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 10. She is a brilliant boxer with a rare and exceptional beauty. She turned Pro at the age of 19 after winning one amateur fight on December 14, 2013 where she destroyed her opponent in 20 seconds. Her talent and marketability made her a fighter to watch right out the gate and she fought under XXX promotion on her next fight on February 2014.
 * At the end of your text, I would have added Her following fight was in February 2014 under XXX promotion. signed,Rosguill talk 23:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer: He is a Bulgarian actor. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry since he was of the age of 14, and he has featured in 44 films. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 23:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 11. He is a popular, acclaimed Bulgarian actor, who loves by all who have watched his films. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry since he was at the tender, innocent of the age of 14 and he has featured in 44 films.
 * , although depending on what sourcing is provided with text like this, you may be able to keep "popular" and/or "acclaimed" in the description if sources establish that. signed,Rosguill talk 23:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Because people views may differ, so we have to show both side, so both are can be represented. So all mainstream view are presented in the article. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 23:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 12. Please read WP:DUE and in your own words, please explain why it is important to provide balance and due weight content in an article.
 * Follow up: Let's say we're evaluating an article about Acme Toys that cites 3 sources: a New York Times article about the company's history, an article in Der Spiegel about the company's recent expansion into Germany, and the company's website. The company's website includes a page-long description of the Toy-o-meter, a product by Acme Toys. Neither NYT nor Der Spiegel mention the Toy-o-meter. According to WP:DUE, what amount of coverage of the Toy-o-meter would be appropriate for the article? signed,Rosguill talk 23:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The same amount of anything else on the article. As we give everything a equal amounts. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 00:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ – because the company's website is not a secondary source, and is less reliable due to its association with the subject matter, we should cover Toy-o-meter minimally, if at all. Observing due weight isn't about "showing both sides", it's about following the lead of reliable sources when it comes to deciding what content belongs in an article. signed,Rosguill talk 00:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 23:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * fixed, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 00:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Extra neutrality practice
For the following paragraphs, identify if they need any edits for neutrality, and if so, draft a corrected version of the paragraph.

1. Goessling is member of the Cancer Genetics Program and the Gastrointestinal Malignancies Program, both at the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. He is also advisory dean of the Irving M. London Society for HST students. He has been hailed for his accessbility, compassion and knowledge and his remarkable patient care, even while he has had to fight against his own aggressive malignancy.

Note: Unless you have a subscription to Süddeutsche Zeitung, you're not going to be able to read the entirety of source #4 (and you'll likely need to use Google Translate either way). Translate what you can, and make an educated guess as to whether it justifies the provided content.
 * Goessling is member of the Cancer Genetics Program and the Gastrointestinal Malignancies Program, both at the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center.[1] He is also advisory dean of the Irving M. London Society for HST students. He has been noted for his accessbility, compassion and knowledge and his patient care.
 * , you could probably preserve some mention of him developing cancer, but your revision is fine as well. signed,Rosguill talk 17:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

2. Nathaniel Coleman (born January 1, 1997) is an American sport climber. He became the first American male climber to qualify to compete in the Olympic Games after advancing to the final at IFSC Combined Qualifier Toulouse 2019 in November–December, 2019. Coleman won three straight USA Climbing Bouldering Open National Championships, from 2016 to 2018, and finished 2nd in the 2019 competition. He also finished second in the 2019 Combined Invitational.
 * None?
 * signed,Rosguill talk 17:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

3. The Disque Foundation is a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit created by Dr. Karl "Fritz" Disque in 2012 in response to a medical mission trip to Hati during the 2010 earthquake. The goal of the Disque Foundation is to further advance the quality of education and health care to under served communities both domestic and abroad. Through mission work and free online courses, the Disque Foundation has empowered over 1,000,000 people around the world with life saving skills.
 * The Disque Foundation is a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit[1] created by Dr. Karl "Fritz" Disque in 2012 in response to a medical mission trip to Hati during the 2010 earthquake[2]. The goal of the Disque Foundation is to further advance the quality of education and health care to under served communities both domestic and abroad. Through mission work and free online courses[3], the Disque Foundation has helped over 1,000,000 people around the world with their medical team. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would change 501(c)(3) Nonprofit to just non-profit organization. Additionally, I would reign in that last sentence a bit more to read something like Since its foundation, the Disque Foundation has provided training CPR and life support for over 1,000,000 people. signed,Rosguill talk 17:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No original research

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

Answer: Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are based on reliable and independent secondary sources. If we included original research that is not cited, then Wikipedia would have information that is not cited by reliable sources.
 * 13. In your own words, why is Wikipedia not a platform for publishing original research?
 * , although I'd add that another important part of this is that Wikipedia editors need to be treated as non-experts on the subject matter in keeping with the third pillar. Thus, a Wikipedia editor is not a reliable source for information. signed,Rosguill talk 00:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer:  Constitution of the United States It is ok to put phrases from the constitution in the article. This is because this is in the public domain.
 * 14.  In your own words, please provide one example with explanation when it is appropriate to insert original research or an original opinion in an article.
 * ❌, whether or not something is in the public domain has no bearing on whether we can write original research about it. signed,Rosguill talk 16:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Follow up: please define original research, writing in your own words.
 * Orignal research is research that are not based on reliable and independent secondary sources. So its research that someone did by them selves. Like an edtior may put something in a article that is Orignal research and say "I did the experment my self and I found..." Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't wrong, but I think that this definition is a bit narrow and doesn't capture certain kinds of OR, such as synthesis or original interpretations of primary sources. Let's do some more practice on this topic. signed,Rosguill talk 17:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer:Shady Alsuleiman stated that "Islam demands Islam commands us with our with regards of our clothing for both men and women, our clothing must be first of all baggy, so must be loose with a men or women. It must non see-through whether men or women. It must non colorful attractive that means when someone walks everyone's looking at them."
 * 15. See this video''' and write an article paragraph that properly presents claims supported by the source.

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 23:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Fixed, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Fixed again, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC) -

Additional practice
For each of the following, state whether the prompt is an example of original research, as well as your reasoning

1. An editor writes a new article about an album. The entirety of the "Reception" section is just "According to Pitchfork" followed by a direct quote from a review in ''Pitchfork.
 * None

2. Source A in an article about Green Wugs states that 70% of green wugs have a checkerboard pattern in their feathers. Source B states that green wugs with checkerboard patterns have a high incidence of sickle cell anemia. An editor writes in the article 70% of green wugs have checkerboard patterns in their feathers and sickle cell anemia and cites both sources
 * None as long as it is a reilble source.
 * ❌, this is synthesis of information from two sources, which is a form of original research. It's not even accurate synthesis, as the statements "70% are A" and "Those that are A have a high incidence of B" do not entail that 70% have B. signed,Rosguill talk 02:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

3. Source A in an article about Green Wugs states that 70% of green wugs have a checkerboard pattern in their feathers. Source B states that all green wugs with checkerboard patterns have sickle cell anemia. An editor writes in the article 70% of green wugs have checkerboard patterns in their feathers and sickle cell anemia and cites both sources
 * As long as it is a Reliblibe source.
 * ❌, synthesis for the same reason as #2, although at least in this case the logical inference is more accurate (but still not allowed). signed,Rosguill talk 02:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

4. In an article about Human rights in South Asia by country, almost all of the sources specifically analyze one country at a time. An editor writes a lead that summarizes the information in the article, including phrases such as roughly half of the countries in South Asia allow for the use of the death penalty and Most countries in South Asia developed their modern legal codes based off of British colonial law. not sure.
 * This is fine, as leads are supposed to be summaries of the article's content, and the closest thing to synthesis here is just tallying up instances of one thing or another as attested by sources, which is generally ok. signed,Rosguill talk 02:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

5. In a review for a song, the editor includes an analysis of the song's lyrics and their meanings that are cited to Genius (website)
 * There is OR as you are not allowed to analyze sources.

6. In an article titled International reactions to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, an editor creates a map based on the information in the article where countries are colored in based on their public stances on the issue. These stances are individually supported by citations in the article's text, but no map is cited.
 * Dont know.
 * This is explicitly allowed per WP:OI, which is part of the overall WP:OR policy. signed,Rosguill talk 02:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

7. In an article about a company, Source A says that in 2018, the company made $100k in revenue selling Product X. Source B says that in 2018, the company made $200k selling Product Y. An editor writes in the article In 2018, the company made $300k in revenue from selling products X and Y.
 * No as long as it is relible sources.
 * ❌, this one's tricky, because in certain cases it would be ok to add up reports of revenue made from multiple sources. However, note that Source A says that the company made $100k in revenue whereas Source B does not specify revenue; for all we know, this second figure could be profit (or some other calculation) that would make it inappropriate to combine the two numbers together. signed,Rosguill talk 02:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

8. In an article about the Climate of South America, a source provides measurements in Celsius. An editor converts the measurements to Fahrenheit in the article.
 * No thats not.
 * Done but I may need more work in this subject. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 01:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll come up with some more questions soon, hopefully tomorrow. It looks like you need a bit more practice identifying synthesis. signed,Rosguill talk 02:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I do. Feel free to post it when you have time. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * unfortunately this is turning into one of my busiest weeks in recent memory and I thus have much less time available for Wikipedia. Apologies in advance in case I can't work on this for a few days. signed,Rosguill talk 04:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , more questions below. signed,Rosguill talk 21:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , more questions below. signed,Rosguill talk 21:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional practice II
1. In an article about Celebrity McPerson, Source A says that Celebrity McPerson was an alcoholic, and that they died liver cancer. Source B says that liver cancer is a common symptom of long term alcohol abuse. An editor writes "McPerson died of liver cancer, a common symptom of alcohol abuse", citing Source A after the comma and Source B at the end of the sentence.
 * None,
 * , because Source A identifies that McPerson was an alcoholic, Source B's information is appropriate to include. If Source A had only mentioned liver cancer, and not alcoholism, the connection to alcohol abuse would not have been appropriate to inlcude. signed,Rosguill talk 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

2. In an article about the Political McCandidate, Source A says that McCandidate lost their reelection bid, carrying 54% of white voters but only 12% of black voters. An editor then writes "McCandidate lost the election due to a lack of support among black voters"
 * As he is infering.

3. In an article about journalist Steve Meinung, an editor writes "Meinung has been published in many major newspapers including the New York Times, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal". Each of mention of these newspapers is accompanied by a citation to an opinion piece written by Meinung in that publication
 * Yes as it is a opinion piece.
 * You got the right answer, but your justification is a bit off. Could you clarify what you meant a bit more? signed,Rosguill talk 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a OR under Neutral point of view which disallows opinions.
 * , the issue here isn't that they're opinion pieces (the answer would be the same even if they were news reports), but rather that they're primary sources. It's not enough to use an article that the subject published as a reference, we need to see that additional secondary sources discuss (or at least mention) that the subject wrote these articles. signed,Rosguill talk 20:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

4. In an article about the Third Crusade, an editor draws a map of the path followed by the various crusader armies.
 * Allowed under WP:OI

5. In an article about Betty Author, the lead includes the sentence "Author's works have received favorable reviews from critics including the LA Review of Books and the New York Times". In the article, a Reception section discusses critical responses to Author's work in depth. These responses are largely favorable, and positive reviews in the LARB and NYT are included as citations and discussed.

6. In an article about the film Cameraperson, an editor adds a plot summary without providing any sources.
 * Yes as WP:VERIFYOR
 * ❌, plot summaries are allowed per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. signed,Rosguill talk 20:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

7. In an article about the Seminoles, Source A says that Seminoles were able to defend themselves from American incursions in the swamps of Florida for a very long time. Source B says that Seminoles were much better than the Americans at navigating the swamps of Florida. An editor writes "The Seminoles were able to successfully defend themselves from American attacks for a long time. Seminoles had a much easier time moving through the swamps of Florida than the Americans"
 * Yes as this a is synthesis of information from two sources.
 * ❌, The first sentence is purely supported by Source A, and the second sentence is purely supported by Source B. No synthesis here. signed,Rosguill talk 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

8. Exactly the same set up as the previous question, but this time the editor writes "The Seminoles were able to successfully defend themselves from American attacks over a long period of time due to their greater ability to move through Florida's swamps"
 * ❌, This, on the other hand, is synthesis because the information from the two sources is being combined to make one compound claim. We have 2 sources that make Claim A and Claim B. Q7's prompt simply states A and then B, which is fine. Q8 says "B therefore A", which is original research because neither of the sources explicitly connects B to A. signed,Rosguill talk 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌, This, on the other hand, is synthesis because the information from the two sources is being combined to make one compound claim. We have 2 sources that make Claim A and Claim B. Q7's prompt simply states A and then B, which is fine. Q8 says "B therefore A", which is original research because neither of the sources explicitly connects B to A. signed,Rosguill talk 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Done, take your time. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , one more follow up question for Q3. Additionally, how are you feeling about original research? Do you want to practice it more? signed,Rosguill talk 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, eh I think I'm good with it. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok. We'll probably want to come back to review SYNTH a bit more later, but for now let's move on to the next topic. signed,Rosguill talk 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion
 PART 2 


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


 * Please do the following


 * 1) Please set up your CSD log by installing MYCSD so that I can review your CSD nominations. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Bypass your cache.
 * 2) Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in your computer.
 * 3) Download CV-revdel and after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Bypass your cache.

General criteria

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


 * Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 23:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Follow up question: what is an editing test, as mentioned in your answer to G2? signed,Rosguill talk 23:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 01:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Article and redirect criteria

 * 1. Please review A1-A11, R2, and R3 criteria at WP:CSD and answer the following questions in your own words. When writing examples, be specific.


 * Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I thought of a better way to test comprehension for this section, please fill out the additional column. signed,Rosguill talk 05:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 20:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , good work for the most part. Let's try some examples. signed,Rosguill talk 21:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Scenarios

 * Scenario 1

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text: John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.
 * G3 I think.
 * , would also have accepted A7 or G10. signed,Rosguill talk 22:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text Good Times LLC is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.
 * G11


 * Scenario 3

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text: Edward Gordon (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 500 subscribers on YouTube.
 * I think A7.


 * Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content: Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.
 * A7 or A1, but a redirect to the The Nice could made work?
 * Redirecting to The Nice is the best solution. An A7 might be accepted, as there is no actual Hall of Fame for roadies. However, an admin reviewing the request may decide that a roadie Hall of Fame is a plausible claim of significance decline without investigating. A1 does not apply, as there is some context. If there wasn't a mention at The Nice, PROD would probably be your best bet. signed,Rosguill talk 22:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 5

A user creates an article Marks v. Shoup with the following content: Under the law of Oregon which was in force in Alaska when the seizure and levy of the plaintiff's goods were made by the defendant as marshal of Alaska under a writ of attachment, that officer could not, by virtue of his writ, lawfully take the property from the possession of a third person, in whose possession he found it.
 * G1.
 * ❌, G1 is only for actual gibberish, e.g. a;lkja;lk;nlkn;wkln;lkan;l" or Banana banana banana very fruit yay. You can find relevant results for Marks v. Shoup online. As the above is actually text from a US district court case, it is thus 1) public domain and 2) likely notable. I would either mark the article as approved and tag for improvement, or nominate it for AfD if you don't think it has received enough coverage following a BEFORE search. signed,Rosguill talk 22:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
 * Stick it in google translate and see if it needs any SD like if it is promo.
 * ❌, google translate is a good first step, but the second step should be to check if the relevant-language wikipedia has an article on this subject. If so, A2 applies. If not, tag the page with Not English and list it at Pages needing translation into English for review and possible translation. These instructions are included at WP:A2. signed,Rosguill talk 22:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 22:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , graded. More below signed,Rosguill talk 22:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * G7

A user creates an article which is an identical copy of another article on Wikipedia.
 * Scenario 8
 * A10
 * , first check the title. If it's a reasonable search term, just turn it into a redirect. signed,Rosguill talk 06:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 9

A user with the name "WikiRockers" creates the following article Phabricators are Fabulous is the debut single of an exciting new group called the WikiRockers.


 * A7 or A9
 * , A9 is correct, but A7 only applies to people, animals, organizations, web content, events. G11 applies here as well because the article is obviously self-promotion based on the editor's username. signed,Rosguill talk 06:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 10

A user creates an article and 5 minutes after it was created the article only has a single category with no other text.
 * A3
 * ❌, 5 minutes is too soon, someone could very plausibly be working on a major edit to the article. For everything except copyvio, or blatant misuse of Wikipedia, I usually like to wait at least a few hours since an article's creation before conducting a full review. signed,Rosguill talk 06:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A user creates an article Larry Footy with the following wikisource (in other words it properly displays in the article):
 * Scenario 11


 * A1
 * ❌, there's plenty of context, this is obviously a biography of an English football player who plays for Oxford City. As there's no sources, BLPPROD applies. signed,Rosguill talk 06:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A user with the name Gamerfan123 creates the following article: GamerCon is an annual event held in the garage of Shelly Sony. Last year 10 people attended - a record. This year's event will be held October 19-21.
 * Scenario 12
 * A7

A user creates the article HomeTown Pizza with the following content: HomeTown Pizza is a local pizza maker. It has been open since 2004. Its most popular topping, according to the local paper, is pepperoni.[1]
 * Scenario 13

References 1.^ localalnewspaper.com/hometownpizza/profile.html
 * A7
 * , although note that if the provided reference is actually solid coverage then A7 is no longer appropriate and you should conduct a full WP:BEFORE search. signed,Rosguill talk 06:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A user Someguy54321 makes the following article and 3 days later gets community banned for repeatedly operating a bot without approval. Mary Beth Walz is a state senator in the New Hampshire House of representatives.
 * Scenario 14
 * None
 * without any references, BLPPROD is still required, although given that the subject allegedly meets WP:NPOLITICIAN you should probably just search for a source yourself (even if it's not a great source). signed,Rosguill talk 06:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

User:PhilHDoct creates the following article at Solar Panel 2.0: Phil Doct has created a new solar panel which will increase energy output from existing solar panels by 30%. He was granted a patent on this invention on May 15.
 * Scenario 15
 * Mark as may not meet GNG, or put it ad AFD.
 * ❌ So there's a few things going on here. One is that this is at a minimum obvious self-promotion. The other is that claiming to increase solar panel energy output by 30% is an extraordinary claim, so extraordinary that it's not remotely credible without a good source to back it up, and thus A11 does apply. But even if you're not equipped to evaluate the claim and have to assume that it's credible on good faith, the self-promotion is grounds to draft the article and request that the editor go through AfC. signed,Rosguill talk 06:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't want to be harsh, but there really isn't an excuse for getting questions like 9, 10, or 11 wrong. If you ever have the slightest doubt in your mind that you're misremembering a CSD criterion (and its exceptions), you should look it up again before filing for it (I still regularly have to look up CSD criteria). The English Wikipedia community generally has very little tolerance for mistakes in CSD tagging: it's probably the most common reason that people lose new page reviewer privileges after having been granted them. signed,Rosguill talk 06:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah your not harsh, I understand why you want to do this :). Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A user converts a redirect Tayo into an article with the following wikisource. In your answer, also evaluate if anything would be different if a user made this as a new article, rather than from a redirect. You: Kill Tayo!!!!!!!!!!! Rogi: Nooooo You!!!!!!! Tayo:Help!!!!! Blood, this is my sad Gani: Call Emergency!!!!! You: Kill Gani!!!!!! Lani:321! Bomb you!!!
 * Scenario 16
 * Ok, since it was made from a redirect, it falls under general criteria. So G3? But since there is no A something like G3, it would stay like that.
 * ❌, the fact that this was formerly a redirect means that you should just restore the prior redirect. If this was a new article, then G1, A1, and G3 are all more or less equally applicable (I would lean toward G1/A1, as vandalism is generally understood as being intentionally malicious, whereas this is just baffling and unconstructive). signed,Rosguill talk 22:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is secondary sourcing present for all statements. Acme Inc is a Mumbai based widget company with 1200 employees and 10 million (US) in revenues. They were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote. Their first product was a one inch widget. Acme have won several awards for quality.
 * Scenario 17
 * Nothing, though the user may have a COI.
 * , depending on the quality of sourcing you can either approve the article (while warning the editor about COI if they haven't made an official disclosure and possibly tagging the article), or send it to draft and request that they submit through AfC. In the case of a refbombed article with dozens of mediocre sources, draftifying is the correct option: don't waste your time doing paid editors' work for them. signed,Rosguill talk 22:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is sourcing to the company's website present for all statements. Acme Inc is the premier award-winning Indian widget company. Located in beautiful Mumbai, the company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues. In a flash of inspiration brilliant inventor Wiley C Oyote started the company in 2015. Their first product revolutionized widgets and amazingly each new product has been even more impressive. Acme has shown themselves to be the best in the business and only has the greatest things ahead of them. "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.
 * Scenario 18
 * G11, for sure, like above he does have a COI.

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Acme Inc is an award-winning[1][2] Indian widget company. The company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees[3] who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues.[2] We were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote.[3] Our first product was a one inch widget.[4] Acme has become an important widget manufacturer.[3] "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.[4]
 * Scenario 19

Copyvio

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


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

Answer: Ah yes I work in Copyright place a lot, G12 is when there is no copyright free diff of the draft or page. RD-1 is used when removing copyvio without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors.
 * Follow up question: If an editor creates an article, and there is copyvio in every revision, but the copyvio is limited to a single section of the article out of 3 sections, what would be the appropriate action to take? Assume that the subject is notable and there are no other issues with the article. signed,Rosguill talk 20:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, we just remove the copyvio text.


 * 4. What constitutes copyright infringement/violation.

Answer: When you copy (or very closely paraphrase) from a site that is copyrighted. A PD site would not be a vio.
 * , doesn't need to be from a website, but otherwise correct. signed,Rosguill talk 20:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 5. What are some examples of cases where it is ok to have exact copies of text from sources in an article? Please provide three examples.

Answer i: If it is a PD site.

Answer ii: If it is a quote.

Answer iii: When the copyright has expired.
 * Answer iii is just another example of public domain material. Can you think of an additional example? signed,Rosguill talk 20:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If it has a License compatible with wikipedia.
 * , your examples are correct, but you're missing a third category of permissible copying: if there is no way to other way to communicate the information. An example of this would be a bibliography of a scientists' publications, or a particularly long name of an award won by a subject. signed,Rosguill talk 01:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 6. Why do copyright violations need to be removed from Wikipedia and who determines when a violation is lawfully taking place?

Answer: Because they are violating copyright which is a legal Policy. And eh, info-en-c@wikimedia.org or a Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent I think.
 * , the first half is correct, but the answer to the second question is that the community of editors is responsible for identifying and addressing copyright violations. Any editor can flag an article as having copyright problems; cases are then reviewed by either an administrator or a clerk who then either closes the case or calls in an administrator to perform the necessary revision deletion. signed,Rosguill talk 20:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , graded, follow up questions for #3 and #5. signed,Rosguill talk 20:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 01:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest and paid editors

 * Please read WP:NPPCOI, WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question

Answer: Normally by their Flowery wording, also a username is a huge key indiator that they are a COI/PAID edior.
 * 11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?
 * , in addition to these clues, a key piece of evidence is how broad their edit history is in general. Editors with several hundred (or more) edits across a variety of topics are less likely to have a COI, even if they may still use non-neutral language. Another clue is the specific pattern of their edits. COI editors often try to hide their editing by starting out editing a variety of topics, then make their COI article, but then abruptly stop editing. COI articles are also often created in single, large edits, because such articles are often edited offline, with input from the subjects themselves, and then submitted as a completed draft. But do bear in mind that any single one of these behaviors may not by itself be evidence of COI. Depending on how much evidence is available, you'll have to decide whether you should draft an article, tag it, or just send a message to the editor asking if they have a COI. signed,Rosguill talk 02:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: We could WP:DRAFTIFY the aritcle, and do a COI warning and see if they say their COI.
 * 12. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?
 * , this is often appropriate, but depending on both how strong the case for COI is and how well-written the article is, you may want to consider accepting the article and tagging it as COI (if the subject is obviously notable but there's neutrality concerns) or simply following up with the editor (if the article is both about a notable subject, well-written and completely policy-compliant). Draftify should be saved for articles with significant neutrality concerns, or articles that would be a significant burden to assess for notability. signed,Rosguill talk 02:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: WP:DRAFTIFY The article, and ask the warn the edior about Paid editing, and ask if they they can discolse who is paying which they have to do under the WMF terms.
 * 13. Please read WP:PAID. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor?
 * signed,Rosguill talk 02:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 01:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional COI practice
For each of the following prompts, identify how likely it is that the described behavior is COI or PAID editing (not COI/unlikely/possible/likely/very likely), as well as what measures would be appropriate to take (both in terms of messages sent to the involved editors and whether to approve/delete/draftify/tag the article). Don't assume any information about the scenarios beyond what is written: if you feel like you would need additional information to provide a proper answer, describe the various outcomes you would consider based on additional hypothetical evidence.


 * 1 An editor makes 10 edits to a variety of articles, then creates an article about an obscure businessperson in a single edit, and does not make any additional edits for 3 months. The article appears to meet notability guidelines.
 * possible but we don't take any action.
 * , you're right that this is possible, but in this case we should at least notify the editor about COI on their talk page. signed,Rosguill talk 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 2 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics makes a new article in a small amount of edits about a new TV show. The article is not neutrally written. Since having finished the article, the editor has continued to make a handful of contributions to other articles.
 * likely and we would warn the user about COI's, and Draftify the atricle.
 * ❌, this is possible/unlikely, and is more likely to just be a fan or an inexperienced editor than a paid editor. Notifying the editor on their talk page is probably the most appropriate course of action. signed,Rosguill talk 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 3 An editor makes 10 edits to articles about locations in Georgia, then creates a meticulously sourced article about a species of tree native to Georgia in a single 50,000 byte edit. They have not made any additional edits since then.
 * Ok, unlikely, I would approve the article, unless it is not neutrally written then I would draftify the article.
 * , while bearing several hallmarks of COI editing, it's pretty hard to have a COI with a tree. signed,Rosguill talk 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 4 An editor with the username "ApuOcalanPKKForever" creates a biography about a Turkish dissident. The article is not neutrally written.
 * I'm sure your talking about something like Abdullah Öcalan. very likely because the username says that he likes the PKK which is a Kurdish militant and political organization, and also with the fact that he made the article not neutrally written. So warn the user about COI's and tag the article.
 * . signed,Rosguill talk 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 5 A new editor with the username "BillieFan214" writes a non-neutral article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it
 * very likely and warn the user about COI's. We would tag the article as the topic is notable.
 * , I think this is more likely to genuinely be a fan than a paid editor, but otherwise the course of action you described is correct. signed,Rosguill talk 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , graded, more questions below. signed,Rosguill talk 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 7 Over the course of 5 years, an editor writes several articles about a small group of academics and their business ventures. The articles are well-sourced and neutrally written. You've come across their most recent creation, which appears to be notable. Every single article that they've edited in the past five years appears to be somehow related to this group of academics
 * Well very likely that they have a COI, but we won't tag it unless it is written in a not neutrally written tone.
 * The quality and persistence over time in this example is indicative of paid editing. The appropriate course of action is to warn the editor in question, although you're right that it probably isn't necessary to take action against the articles. signed,Rosguill talk 20:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 8 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics named "Ismail Oyo" makes a new article about a notable businessperson from Nigeria, and claims the photo in the infobox as their own work.
 * likely as the photo in the infobox they clam is their's. I would not tag the article unless it is written in a not neutrally written tone.
 * , you should follow up with the editor about the photo. signed,Rosguill talk 20:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 9 An editor with 50 edits to a variety of topics is named "StacyRichardson". Included among these edits are the creation of two new articles about businesspeople from Russia. You are reviewing the most recent article, and it does not appear to be notable, although it is neutrally written.
 * unlikely as it is neutrally written. We would tag it for A7. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌, this is almost certainly paid editing. It's rather unlikely that an editor with this name is going to have a natural interest in Russian businesspeople, and the other edits, being relatively few in number, are likely an attempt to cover up their paid edits. Additionally, nothing in this example suggests that A7 is appropriate; A7 is limited to articles that make no credible claim of significance. The appropriate course of action here would be to either draftify the article (or nominate it for AfD if you've already done a full BEFORE) and warn the editor. signed,Rosguill talk 20:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , graded, more questions added. signed,Rosguill talk 20:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 10 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with less than 50 edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked for sockpuppeting. The subject appears notable
 * This is almost certainly paid editing, because a lot of paid editiors try to move it to main space so no one can find it. We would ask the user to tell who is paying them. We would tag the article with paid tag. Unless the article is not neutrally written. Then we would tag it for COI.
 * , this is all spot-on except for the last bit. Paid editing is a more serious subcategory of COI editing; we wouldn't swap in the less serious coi for upe. The signs of paid editing are a bit weird in that they exist at both ends of the acceptability spectrum: extremely polished articles by new accounts are suspicious and could be evidence of a paid sock farm, but blatantly promotional copy that looks like it was pulled from a promotional brochure is also likely paid editing. In this case, you should file a case at WP:SPI, since there's a good chance that this new account is actually the same person. signed,Rosguill talk 21:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 11 An article is moved from draftspace by an AfC reviewer with several thousand edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked as NOTHERE. The subject does not appear to meet GNG.
 * Could be COI as a NOTHERE user could of been blocked because of WP:SPA. We would tag it for Not meeting GNG, and if it is not neutrally written we would tag it for COI.
 * , in scenarios like this it's also a good idea to check in with the AfC reviewer, to see if there's either a) something you missed, b) something they missed, c) additional behavior suggesting that they're using their permissions in bad faith. signed,Rosguill talk 21:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 12 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with a few hundred edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by an account that has been blocked for violating CIVIL. The subject is a borderline case for notability.
 * Tricky one, as it could be Paid editing but he has never edited the page. Don't think it is COI unless it is not neutrally written. I would look in to the editor that moved it, if he looks like a Paid or a COI user we warn and tag the page. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , if it's not neutrally written there may be cause for concern, but this is probably a good faith move given that the prior block is almost certainly unrelated to COI concerns. signed,Rosguill talk 21:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , on to the next section. signed,Rosguill talk 21:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Filtering - Deletion policy & other alternatives
In assignment 4, we look at articles which meetWP:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) whereby the the articles are deleted within a few hours to 24 hours from the time of the nomination. In Assignment 5, we discuss the what actions should be taken for those articles do not fit under the CSD criteria but do not meet relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia.

Please read WP:PROD,  WP:BLPPROD, WP:MERGE, WP:DRAFTIFY, WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:REDIR, WP:AFD and answer the following questions. (Provide links and hisdiff as needed.)

Answer: We would propose del. with it is a uncontroversial del. And it is easier than AFD. Used if no opposition to the del. is expected.
 * 1. Under what circumstances do we propose deletion (PROD) a page and why do we do that?
 * Can you describe a few examples of uncontroversial deletions? signed,Rosguill talk 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't think of many but I know on of them is when the article meets DELREASON.
 * While obviously there needs to be a valid reason to delete an article before nominating it for PROD, those are also reasons for taking an article to AfD. PROD should be used only in cases of articles that are miles away from meeting GNG and where the editor that created the article is either long gone from Wikipedia or has otherwise stated that they're not going to defend the article if it gets nominated for deletion. It's also only for articles, redirects cannot be deleted through WP:PROD. Otherwise it's better to go to AfD. signed,Rosguill talk 03:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: First we check if there is alts to the del. (Like Merging or redirecting.) And check if it has been on AFD or has been undel. During the nom, we should add the {old prod} if it has been before prod. to the talk page.
 * 2. What should we do before we PROD a page? And what should be considered during a nomination?
 * , all of this is correct, but I was really looking for you to say WP:BEFORE. signed,Rosguill talk 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: That the article has no sources in any form. I) We can do another del. process II) criteria for speedy deletion III) Fix it your self.
 * 3. What is the criteria when nominating a BLPPROD? If we choose not to BLPPROD a page what are the alternatives? (give three examples with explanations)
 * everything is correct, but it also has to be a BLP. signed,Rosguill talk 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: If it does not meet Proposed deletion or Criteria for speedy deletion. We have to do a BEFORE check.
 * 4. In what circumstances can we nominate an AFD and what step should be done prior such action.

Answer: AFD last for 7 days. Prods and BlpProds could last less then 7 days.
 * 5 How long do PROD, BLPPROD and AFD last before it is deleted or decline?
 * ❌, AfD lasts for minimum 7 days and can be relisted longer. PROD and BLPPROD last 7 days but can be removed at any time. In the case of PROD the tag can be removed for literally any reason: even PROD tag removals that are egregiously bad-faith have to be respected. BLPPROD tags can only be removed if a source is provided.


 * I'll also add that while you should keep articles that you nominate for PROD on your watchlist, I usually avoid taking an article to AfD after I PROD it, unless the article was obviously created in bad faith, as it can make the editor that created the article feel like they're under attack and thus can lead to a more contentious, messier AfD. If you're right about the article, someone else will probably nominate it for deletion. signed,Rosguill talk 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: I will take it to AFD.
 * 6. Suppose a page has been previously BLPROD and a source was provided. If you still think that article should be deleted, what can you do?
 * , regular PROD is actually still allowed as well, although it won't be appropriate if the editor providing the source is genuinely trying to save the article (regardless of whether they're justified in this endeavor). Still, if you're reviewing an article where a source was provided by a passing wikignome but the edit summary doesn't give the impression that they're going to dig up anything more than the bare minimum to survive BLPPROD (and particularly if you're reviewing an article where this happened a month ago or more), PROD is the way to go. signed,Rosguill talk 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: They do it because when they are very smailar and because it is better then del. the article.
 * 7. What are the reason to WP:Merge a page to another page?
 * Articles are generally merged for one of three reasons.
 * Articles A and B are actually about the same topic (e.g. Hand gestures in Italian + Gesticulation in Italian) )
 * Article B is a subtopic of Article A and is either not independently notable (e.g. an upcoming entry in a series of books) or is underdeveloped (e.g. ethnic subgroup of an ethnic group that has a Start-class article and makes no mention of the subgroup)
 * Articles A and B are about nebulous subjects and overlap in scope sufficiently that it would be better to present the information all in one place rather than separating it out over multiple articles (e.g. Aftermath of War X and Refugee crisis following War X.
 * signed,Rosguill talk 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Shortcuts, Alternate spellings, Alternate names, Abbreviations, Adjectives and adverbs directing to nouns, Wrong Spellings, Abbreviations, Punctuation issues, Likely alternative capitalizations, More specific forms of names.
 * 8. List 10 reasons we may WP:REDIR instead of deleting.
 * , although you're unlikely to come across an article written with a shortcut for a name. signed,Rosguill talk 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: I would use JSTOR, Google books, Google scholar. And for languages I don't uderstand Google Translate.
 * 9. Please list the ways that you should search for sources in preparation for a PROD or AfD nomination, including steps which may only be relevant for certain subjects. How does this list change for subjects which are likely to have coverage in languages that you cannot read?
 * , I'm not sure you need to search JSTOR in addition to Google Scholar, but you should definitely do a regular Google search and Google News search as well. signed,Rosguill talk 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: When it does not meet mainspace "requirements" and allows more time for the draft to get ready.
 * 10. When can an article be moved to draft space?
 * Could you give specific examples of what kind of articles we should send to draft space, rather than nominating for deletion? I can think of three main categories. signed,Rosguill talk 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, When a Editor has a COI, when the article does not meet the required standard, he topic has some potential merit.  Sorry for the long wait I just got off from begin on and off. Best, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * COI is 1 of 3, and I think I've actually thought of a fourth category. What does it mean for something to not meet the required standard, yet still have potential merit? It's worth noting that generally speaking, the best way to get an article improved is to put it in mainspace, not to sequester it as a draft. And yet there are some articles that we should move to draftspace. Why is that? What types of articles are going to meet this very narrow standard? signed,Rosguill talk 03:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm throwing my hands up for the drafty question. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 18:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Three kinds of articles that should be draftified, other than COI:
 * Articles where the subject is obviously notable, but the content at the article is flagrantly in violation of policy such that we can't leave it up for readers (such as combinations of BLP violations, OR, or attack content).
 * Articles for subjects that might be notable, but you are totally unable to do a proper BEFORE yourself (because of offline sources or foreign languages). Usually this should be in conjunction with other significant concerns, such as confusingly-worded content or neutrality issues, that make the article less-than-useful to readers in its present state. If the article doesn't have any issues other than an unclear claim to notability, either tagging with Notablity or nominating for AfD would be more appropriate.
 * Articles about subjects that are likely to be notable in the future, but are not yet notable, where there isn't a useful redirect target to point to in the meantime, such as upcoming films that don't meet WP:NFF.
 * Finally, draftifying is also appropriate for cases where the subject is not notable, but a related subject that doesn't currently have an article is notable (e.g. non-notable book by a notable author). In this case, we need to be clear that we aren't suggesting that the editor revise and resubmit the article, but rather repurpose some of the content in the article for a different draft. signed,Rosguill talk 20:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , no worries, I've been relatively inactive recently as well. signed,Rosguill talk 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC) "Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)"

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


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

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

Answer: So people can work on the article and tell readers that it may have problems.
 * 1. Why do we place tags on the article?
 * , another key reason is that it adds the article to backlogs of pages that need work. signed,Rosguill talk 01:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: That you just tag the article without looking at it.
 * 2. What does "drive by tagging" mean?
 * ❌, drive by tagging generally refers to the act of placing tags and then failing to follow up. This failure takes the form of either not sufficiently explaining the reason for the tag (in the case of vague or complicated tags like POV and Notability), or failing to respond to further questions or responses to the tag. signed,Rosguill talk 01:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Wrong tags, Unhelpful tags, Unconstructive tagging, Too many tags, Disputes over tags.
 * 3. List 5 common tagging behaviors that should be avoided in an article
 * What is the difference between wrong tags, unhelpful tags, and unconstructive tagging? I'll also add that disputes over tags can and do happen, and I'm not sure I would list them as behavior to be avoided (although obviously edit warring over a tag is silly). signed,Rosguill talk 01:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A wrong tag is when you put a tag that does not say you want it to say. A unhelpful tag is when you put it because it is merely possible. Not every article needs a tag (Wikipedia:NOTAG).

Answer: When the problem listed on the tag is gone.
 * 4. When is it appropriate to remove the tags?
 * Does it matter who placed the tag? signed,Rosguill talk 01:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as they don't have a COI.
 * , although it's also bad form to edit-war away a template. signed,Rosguill talk 03:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 23:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , follow up questions to 3 and 4. signed,Rosguill talk 01:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 01:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok next up is your final exam, which is split into several sections. In some portions, you'll be asked to nominate articles for deletion or participate in discussions. For these sections, I'm less interested in whether your vote ends up matching the outcome or if your CSD is accepted than whether your reasoning for the vote or tag was sound (although being correct is also generally a good sign). signed,Rosguill talk 03:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 1
1. In your own words, how should you communicate with editors whose articles you are reviewing?


 * Answer: We should be nice to them WP:AGF, [For all editors] as if we are not we might deter or give the wrong idea about wikipedia to the new editor [For new editors]. And you should always follow up with the question that they might ask.

'''2. What kind of sources are needed to demonstrate the notability of the subject? Why is this important?'''


 * Answer: We need sources that are independent, reliable, have significant coverage of the subject, and verify the info.
 * ❌ This is all correct, but the sources also need to be secondary, and you didn't really answer the part of the question about why this is important. signed,Rosguill talk 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

'''3.What constitutes a WP:COPYVIO? When might something not be copyvio despite having text identical to a source?'''


 * Answer: When someone copys a copyrighted source like a website, book, etc, without permission. When it is a PD site, book, etc, a quote, or a bibliography of a someones publications, or a particularly long name of an award won by a subject. [or if it has a License compatible with wikipedia.]

4. What should we do when we encounter WP:COPYVIO in an article?


 * Answer: If it is the whole article and there is not clean diff to rv to we place a G12, and if it is a small part then we remove it and place a RD-1 reequest.
 * Sometimes an RD-1 will not be appropriate, if editors other than the editor that introduced the copyvio have made significant prose contributions whose history would be wiped out by the RD-1. In those cases, we just remove the copyvio and move on. It's also important to notify the editors responsible for adding the copyvio (unless you tag G12, in which case the automatic warning is enough). signed,Rosguill talk 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

5. What should we do when we encounter WP:PAID?


 * Answer: If we find an article we WP:DRAFTIFY it, and tag it with {upe} ask and warn the edior about Paid editing, and ask if they can discolse who is paying which they have to do under the WMF terms.
 * This is the correct answer if we encounter undeclared paid editing. For paid editing with proper declarations, review as normal and do a thorough check for notability and neutrality. signed,Rosguill talk 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Answer: We CSD the article when there is a big % of the article that is Copyvio and there is no clean diff to rv to. Revdel is when there is a small number of text that is copyvio but is only used when removing copyvio without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors.

'''7. What makes an article a WP:PROMO page? What should we do when we encounter such an article?'''


 * Answer: An article that promotes something, and if we see it we G11 it.
 * ❌ the article has to be exclusively promotional to qualify for G11. If an article is borderline, tagging it with advert may be more appropriate. signed,Rosguill talk 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

'''8. Why do we tag a page? What are common tags to place on an article?'''


 * Answer: We tag an article so editors and readers that there is issues with the article, More references, No references, COI.
 * ✅ no references isn't that common, but this is generally correct signed,Rosguill talk 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

9. When do we WP:R2 a page?


 * Answer: This applies to redirects, apart from shortcuts from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces.
 * ❌ It applies only to redirects from Mainspace to other namespaces other than the exceptions, not apart from them. signed,Rosguill talk 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

10. When do we WP:PROD a page?


 * Answer: When an article doesn't meet CSD, but not expected to be controversial, like if it is not meet GNG.
 * If an article doesn't meet CSD and is a long ways from meeting notability guidelines even after you've done a brief BEFORE, and is likely to not be contested if nominated for deletion, then PROD is appropriate. signed,Rosguill talk 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

11. When do we WP:BLPPROD a page?


 * Answer: We check That the article has no sources in any form, and it is a BLP.
 * ✅, although if the subject is obviously notable (e.g. prominent politician, Nobel Prize winner), consider looking up a source to add to the article instead of nominating for deletion. signed,Rosguill talk 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

12. When do we WP:AfD a page?
 * Answer: If it does not meet Proposed deletion or Criteria for speedy deletion. We have to do a BEFORE check. also.

13. Why it is important to WP:CSD a page when the article fit the CSD criteria?


 * Answer: Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion.
 * ✅ most CSD criteria also tend to be written to catch things that are explicitly harmful to Wikipedia signed,Rosguill talk 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

'''14. What does it mean to AGF? What does it not mean?'''
 * It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Because most people are trying to help the wikipedia. You don't have to AGF in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism).

Part 2
Please provide the names of 5 CSD criteria G11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section).


 * Answer i: Draft:Zaid owies


 * Answer ii: Draft:Daniel Stricker


 * Answer iii: Draft:Sonu husain


 * Answer iv: Free Esperanto association for German-speaking territories


 * Answer v: WebWed Mobile

Part 3
'''Please provide 5 CSD G12 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). You can use Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool to check if an article is in violation of COPYVIO.'''


 * Answer i: Draft:John Petrie (drag racer)


 * Answer ii: Draft:Bhanga Higher Secondary school


 * Answer iii: Editions Alecto


 * Answer iv: Draft:Los Angeles Chinese Film Festival


 * Answer v: Draft:History of Precious Metal Mining from Seawater

Part 4
'''Please provide 5 "Article CSD" articles (with at least two of them are CSD A7) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Pls provide the article names and hist diff.'''

Answer i: The Ungrateful


 * Answer ii: Prad KC
 * this was more G11/BLPPROD than A7


 * Answer iii: Jutt Musawar19


 * Answer iv: Knock games


 * Answer v: Editions Alecto
 * ❌, this was about a company, not a person (you used the wrong CSD code), and was a better fit for G11 (and G12 apparently, according to deletion logs) than A7.

Part 5
1. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons.


 * Answer i: Naandhi (2020 film) because Not notable for wikipedia yet. Unrated films can only be included when there is reliable sources saying that the main photography has started. And there is no sources.


 * Answer ii: Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (2022 film) Same reason as above

2. Nominate 1 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons.


 * Answer i: Mervyn Frost
 * ❌ while it was not formatted as a proper citation, the article as of when you placed BLPPROD had an external link to, which is enough to avoid BLPPROD. signed,Rosguill talk 16:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Part 6
1. Participate in 5 WP:AFD where by you are the first voter of the discussion after the nomination and provide links to the discussions.


 * Answer i: Articles for deletion/Rafael Verga


 * Answer ii: Articles for deletion/Blindfire


 * Answer iii: Articles for deletion/Bunk Campers


 * Answer iv: Articles for deletion/St. Benilde School (2nd nomination)


 * Answer v: Articles for deletion/Infolob Solutions Inc.

Part 7
Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanations for your nomination.


 * Answer I: Articles for deletion/Keith Bothongo


 * Answer ii: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steppenwolf: The X-Creatures Project (2nd nomination) because Does not meet WP:GNG. And has no Refs.
 * while you were correct about notability, you missed a valid alternative to deletion, i.e. redirecting to the studio that made the game. signed,Rosguill talk 16:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Answer iii: Articles for deletion/Khetsingh Khangar


 * Answer iv:


 * Answer v:

Part 8
Please list 10 things that need to be considered when reviewing a page.


 * Answer i: Check if the article is in English


 * Answer ii: Check for WP:Wikipedia is not


 * Answer iii: Check for copyright


 * Answer iv: Check for promo content


 * Answer v: Check for reliable and independent sources.


 * Answer vi: Check for notability guidelines


 * Answer vii: Tag it with G11, A7, etc. if neeeded.


 * Answer viii: Add categories


 * Answer xi: Add WikiProjects


 * Answer x: Add short description
 * ❌, while none of these steps are wrong, this isn't quite the answer I was looking for. Missing from this list of steps is checking for neutrality issues other than "promo"; while the most common form of POV editing that we see in NPP is promotional, problematic POV editing can also be negative. Also missing is checking for copy editing issues. Additionally, several of the listed steps here are strictly redundant: checking for reliable sources is part of checking against notability guidelines; G11 and A7 tagging are part of assessing POV and notability respectively. signed,Rosguill talk 16:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Part 9
Pick 5 articles that meet the notability guidelines''' (no PROD/BLPPROD/R2/AfD/CSD) from the new pages from Special:NewPagesFeed and follow the NPP flowchart and provide the appropriate answer below (pls place N/A if not applicable). Pick articles that have 3-4 sources for the exercises below. (pls provide link and hist diff). You should follow the NPP flowchart.'''

1

 * 1.
 * 1) Article          = Jack Peterson Memorial
 * 2) Article titles   = ok
 * 3) Images copyright = Yes, I found it in one of the sources.
 * 4) NPOV             = none
 * 5) COI / PAID       = none
 * 6) COPYVIO          = none
 * 7) Article Class    = start
 * 8) Short Descr      = Revolutionary war era patriot Memorial
 * 9) Categories       = Monuments and memorials


 * 1) Review           = Reviewed under AGF. Since I can't find the other sources.
 * 2) Reason (for 10)   = It seems to meet GNG. Comes up with 8,000,000 on google.
 * 3) Sources I can't find two of the sources so only 2 for this one.


 * , given the subject matter it's not a huge deal, but the article's language has some neutrality issues. I don't know that it needs a template, but it should have at least been noted here as part of the review (and in an actual review scenario, you should let the editor in question know too). signed,Rosguill talk 16:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

2

 * 2.
 * 1) Article          = Baghdasht Peak
 * 2) Article titles   = ok
 * 3) Images copyright = None
 * 4) NPOV             = Ok
 * 5) COI / PAID       = None
 * 6) COPYVIO          = None
 * 7) Article Class    = Stub
 * 8) Short Descr      = None
 * 9) Categories       = Peak in Iran
 * 10) Review           =  Reviewed In AGF
 * 11) Reason (for 10)   = Seems Notable enough to be in, but I can't read the sources since their in a language a can't read. It's also in List of mountains in Iran
 * 12) Sources The Sources are in a different language, so in AGF I'm going to say that their good.


 * ❌, Google Translate can process Persian well enough to review the sources in question. There was also some significant confusion in the article's content as to whether Baghdasht is a peak or a mountain range. Note that the article was since deleted per G5 as the editor that created it was blocked for socking; I did not hold this against you when reviewing this question. signed,Rosguill talk 16:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

3

 * 3.
 * 1) Article          = Ilha de Santana
 * 2) Article titles   = Ok
 * 3) Images copyright = None
 * 4) NPOV             = None
 * 5) COI / PAID       = None
 * 6) COPYVIO          = None
 * 7) Article Class    = Stub
 * 8) Short Descr      = None
 * 9) Categories       = Islands of the Amazon, River islands of Brazil, Populated places established in 1753, Populated places in Amapá, Amapá geography stubs, Island stubs.
 * 10) Review           = Reviewed
 * 11) Reason (for 10)   = Seems Notable. AGF for the sources since I can't read it.
 * 12) Sources


 * ❌, while in this case the subject does appear notable, Portuguese can be easily translated using Google Translate. signed,Rosguill talk 16:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

4

 * 4.
 * 1) Article          =
 * 2) Article titles   =
 * 3) Images copyright =
 * 4) NPOV             =
 * 5) COI / PAID       =
 * 6) COPYVIO          =
 * 7) Article Class    =
 * 8) Short Descr      =
 * 9) Categories       =
 * 10) Review           =
 * 11) Reason (for 10)   =
 * 12) Sources

5

 * 5.
 * 1) Article          =
 * 2) Article titles   =
 * 3) Images copyright =
 * 4) NPOV             =
 * 5) COI / PAID       =
 * 6) COPYVIO          =
 * 7) Article Class    =
 * 8) Short Descr      =
 * 9) Categories       =
 * 10) Review           =
 * 11) Reason (for 10)   =
 * 12) Sources

---

Part 10
Creating article

'''Please create a new article about a notable subject. If you can't think of a subject to write about, inspiration be found at WikiProject Women in Red/API Women.

Answer: Dixon Reservoir (Escondido)


 * Hello, I'm working on a GA right now so I will not work on this until the GA is done. Best, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 14:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , sounds good. signed,Rosguill talk 16:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry Rosguill for not talking in monuths, I was busy with life and I did not have time for wikipedia, I will start working on it tommow. Best, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 14:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sry, life has just been crazy, I hope to finsh this soon! Thanks, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * all good, I've been very busy lately too. signed,Rosguill talk 18:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a article a few monuths ago, can i use that one for Part. 10? Thanks, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes although if you do pick an old article, I'd read through it again to make sure it doesn't have any obvious errors that you may have learned about since creating it. signed,Rosguill talk 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the article. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 22:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC).

Conclusion
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I can't give you a passing grade on this course. I'm seeing too many careless mistakes in the final exam as well as errors that suggest an incomplete understanding of neutrality guidelines and deletion procedures. At this point, I don't think there is any need to draw this out further. I hope that you will not allow this to discourage you from editing productively in other fields of work on Wikipedia. signed,Rosguill talk 16:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)