User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 3

User:AshleyYourSmile
NOTE: I've added this for my record-keeping purposes only. Ashley was an excellent editor, and after passing the course in Feb 2021, she went on to become an administrator. Her training archive was deleted for privacy reasons in light of what happened here.  She will be greatly missed.  Atsme 💬 📧 14:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Skingo12
 Notability in a nutshell Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject. See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.

Welcome New Trainee! Instructions:, now that you have read the NPP Tutorial and have become somewhat familiar with the flowchart and curation tool, it's time for the Q&A session to see what you've learned during that exercise. You will also take part in a few live exercises as part of your training. You are expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines that I have presented in the form of subsections below. You will provide, in your own words, a one or two paragraph summary of what you've learned, one section at a time. After you complete a subsection, wait until I have reviewed your responses and determine if you are ready to move on to the next subsection; there will be a total of 5 subsections. WP has no deadlines, so you may work at your own pace.

It may seem like a lot at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. Keep in mind, that your reactions are also part of the exam. NPP is not a cake walk, and has been referred to as a step under becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions if you don't quite understand something - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! ~  Atsme 💬 📧 14:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

 * Notability

Notability is when the subject has attracted significant attention and coverage by verifiable, reliable, secondary sources. It must also not meet any of the what Wikipedia is not guidelines. The sources must also include more than a mere "passing mention". For example it would not be sufficient for even a reliable secondary source to say "Boris Johnson has been seen shopping in local shops including: Cats R us, Spaghetti Express and Discount Coats" doesn't mean that any of those shops merit their own article. There may also be times where it is more appropriate to merge articles that separately would not meet notability guidelines. Being deemed notable doesn't mean that an article doesn't have to comply with other policies.


 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)

WP:GNG states that an article must have significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. Independent means to be entirely unrelated to the subject, for example personal blogs or company articles on a employee are not independent. Reliable means to be well established, written from a mostly neutral point of view and ideal to be written from an experts point of view. For example a BBC news biology editor saying "5G technology poses no threat to health" is reliable, while an anonymous Facebook user stating "5G is mind control wake up people!!!" is not reliable and doesn't merit coverage under WP:FRINGE (and probably WP:HOAX as well). Secondary sources are sources that "analyse, evaluate and interpret" primary sources. Significant coverage means to include more then just a passing mention (as explained above).
 * ✅ but with a qualifier - see User_talk:Atsme. While FRINGE states: ...a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is, a person and even a theory may be notable and merit inclusion. Keep in mind that every notable conspiracy throughout history began as a theory. Another example, an author may be notable because they write books about fringe topics and various theories, and even more so if some of their fringe theories were proven true. We do not/should not automatically exclude a topic/BLP only on the basis that it's "fringe". What matters most is how that fringe is presented once we have established that it is notable and worthy of inclusion.  Atsme 💬 📧 12:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

The Specific Notability Guidelines are designed to give more specific criteria to determine if a subject merits an article. They also give criteria for determining if a source is adequate, and if the mention in the source is adequate enough. SNG's may also have even more guidance for subtopics, for example the music SNG has specific guidance for albums, songs and tours. For a subject to merit an article it must meet the GNG or the SNG, preferably the SNG.
 * ✅ but with a qualifier - our job is to make a determination on the "merits" of inclusion - for example, a person may have done something extraordinary, or was the first at something, etc. but may not have been covered in the same manner we see coverage today. That doesn't make the person any less notable; however, it is important that the material is verifiable to avoid OR. In general, the availability of wide-spread publications about a topic was limited, particularly when determining historical notability, even as early as the 40s-50s-60s, and particularly so for women. It gets even more difficult when it's about women in countries where they are oppressed. At NPP we take these important aspects into consideration when making a determination about notability. If we are uncertain, it is better to err on the side of inclusion because we have AfD as an option to achieve consensus if someone else determines the subject does not pass GNG or SNG.
 * Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest

The organisation and company SNG provides specific criteria for organisations to merit an article. For example it requires "significant coverage", then includes examples of what is and is not significant coverage. It also provides specific guidance for the topic, for example COI guidance and advertising/promoting guidance. It also includes specific guidance for types or organisations, for example Not for profit organisations and government organisations.

The WP:WEB guidance details what websites are notable and what ware not. Sites must have significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. It also explains how notability is not inherent or inherited. For example if a popular shop that has already has an article publishes a website, the website doesn't merit its own standalone article and should instead be merged into the existing shop article.


 * Common Wikipedia practices when evaluating notability


 * 1) First I would make sure the article complied with the first part of the flowchart (eg. is it written in English etc.)
 * 2) Next I would make sure that none of the CSD applied.
 * 3) Then I would look for and make sure it complied with the appropriate SNG.
 * If there was not a SNG for the topic then I would use the GNG.
 * ✅ and take the qualifiers I mentioned above into consideration.

Notability exercises

 * Following are a few notability exercises for you to review, and explain how you would handle them as an NPP reviewer:
 * 1) Yvan Dautin


 * First part of the flowchart looks good, no CSD met.
 * No copyvio.
 * Unfortunatly non of the cited sources are reliable. I did a quick google search and could find none and the french article only has one source.
 * In theory it could be tagged for A7 for this however it could have a CCS. I don't think it dose however I'm not entirely confident with CCS so I would PROD.
 * Either an A7 or a PROD would be a mistake because Yvan Dautin is notable. See Les Misérables (musical) - he played a significant role as Thénardier, and was part of the original 1980 French cast. He also won a notable award and has a segment in Billboard Billboard, 22 May 1993, Comeback for Dautin. See WP:NPOSSIBLE - as an NPP reviewer, you should be looking for sources that would support inclusion rather than looking for reasons to delete it.


 * 1) Ateaa Tina


 * Once again, first part of the flowchart looks good.
 * Copyvio returns nothing.
 * The subject is covered, however none of the sources are reliable or acceptable. I notice it has been AFD'd for this already. (Would it be appropriate for me to join in on this?)
 * In this case I would PROD it, however the AFDer must have decided that it would be controversial or already PRODed.
 * Prax did the right thing using AfD. This could be considered borderline for some, but I'm seeing it as passing WP:GNG & WP:SNG considering there is not going to be much publicity about a black female back-up singer from Ghana, except perhaps in Ghana, despite global notability. That's just the way it is, and why we have WP:WikiProject Women In Red. I did participate in that AfD, and as a reviewer in training, there is no reason you should not be able to participate. If you feel strongly enough that it should be deleted, then present your argument. It is very possible that consensus will decide to delete. We do not linger at AfDs - we provide an argument, and let consensus make the determination.


 * 1) Walter Baily's Motor


 * Again, all of the first part of the flowchart looks good.
 * I ran a copyvio check and it did match, however they were all quotes and looked like they were in the public domain now.
 * There is no SNG so it applying the GNG it appears that it just about scrapes the GNG however it is in desperate need of more sources. If I was reviewing it I would probably have redrafted it and looked for more sources.
 * As for tags it looks well written however there seems to be a high possibility of original research so I would tag it as such.
 * It just needs sources. I marked it as reviewed.


 * 1) National Institute for Digital Security


 * First parts of the flowchart (English, context, CSD etc.) look good.
 * Well I did a copyvio check and it returned at 46.5%. I had a look at some of the URLs and it looks like some text has been copied and pasted from websites with "all rights reserved". In this case I would tag with and remove the infringing text as long as it is worth saving afterwards.
 * It's not quite completely neutral, so I would probably tag with, and possibly
 * Now for notability I followed the SNG, however none of the sources had any mention at all of the organisation.
 * Because of this I think the article should be proposed for deletion.
 * I created the TP, and nominated it as an AfD because it fails the criteria for WP:ORG.
 * , I need you to evaluate each article separately, IOW, add your comments under each article. I just added hidden text for clarity. Sorry for the confusion.  Atsme 💬 📧 19:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I was working from the bottom and was summoned away from the computer before I had a chance to do the others, I was doing them separately. Sorry for my weird work method :-) Skingo12 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops forgot to ping:
 * Pings only work when you use your sig along with the ping. You can't go back and ping without signing again.


 * , remember to ping me after you've completed the above exercises.  Atsme 💬 📧 12:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi sorry to ping you, but I was unsure if the exercises were just to determine notability, or for the article as a whole? Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked you to ping me, so no need to apologize; pinging is the best way to get my attention. First thing I want you to do is go back to the Welcome paragraph at New_pages_patrol and refresh your memory because those are the motions I want you to go through mentally as you review each article in the list, but write your findings here as if you were actually reviewing those articles. I want to know how you would handle it if you were actually reviewing them as an NPP reviewer so I can help guide you, as needed. Notability is always a primary issue but if you see other issues, it's ok to mention them, too - tell me what you see, and how you would handle it.  Atsme 💬 📧 21:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding these exercises, I want you to focus more on keeping than deleting when performing your first-read evaluations. Please read Notability in a nutshell at the top of this page. With the intention of keeping articles first, think about what you can do as a reviewer to improve it without spending a great deal of time on it (unless you choose to do so), and consider deletion as a last resort. IOW, if it needs more sources, do a bit of deeper research to see if WP:NPOSSIBLE applies, and maybe add a source or two to demonstrate that sources do exist. As for moving articles to DRAFT, last resort!! We typically move to Draft is MOS is butchered, or the context isn't clear, or the grammar needs a lot of work that you can't fix right then and there. Ok,, you can begin the next section.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Part 1 - ✅
 * PASSED Part 1. Good job with the reviews.  Atsme 💬 📧 10:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

 * Assume good faith

It is important to assume good faith with all users, unless they have demonstrated that they are obviously not acting in good faith. Most of the time if a user makes a bad edit or mistake it was accidental and not intentional. Rather than telling the user off and telling them to stop editing, you should politely inform them of policy, point out where you think that they made a mistake, advise them on what to do next time and offer to help. Fore example, instead of assuming that a user is disregarding a guideline, assume that they have just not heard of it and point it out to them. One of the common issues I get on RC patrol is new users changing or updating information, removing large bodies of text without an edit summary, while intending to replace them later. These are useful contributions (although a little confusing to other users) and should be welcomed.


 * Biographies of living people

As BLPs are about living people it is even more important to ensure all regulations are followed even more strictly then usual. All information must be referenced with a reliable independent secondary source. All views must be properly weighted and any un-sourced information must be immediately removed. There are also many arbitration cases and foundation policies that can affect pages of particular people indefinitely or temporarily, for example politicians when there is an election. The guidelines emphasise the need to just stick to the facts. For example it would not be appropriate to say "They enthusiastically supported x policy" as "enthusiastically" is unnecessary and could show bias. There are other strict rules as well, for example what crimes merit mention and when something can be considered necessary of inclusion.


 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)

COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia as it undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia and very often involves content being changed to a less then neutral point of view. Undisclosed COI editing is when a editor somehow related to the subject, either personally or commercially, edits the page without declaring it. Very often COI edits are less then neutral, un-sourced or just factually incorrect. COI editing should be declared somewhere visible, for example the users user page so that other editors are aware of any possible areas that the editor with COI should not edit. COI should use the requested edit system instead of making direct edits to the live article.

UPE is when an editor is paid to make edits to a particular page without disclosing their employer. Paid editors are required to declare any and all employers and what they are being paid to edit. They must also used the requested edit system.


 * Copyright

The use of copyrighted media on Wikipedia is strictly forbidden, unless there is a compatible licence, for example CC BY-SA and GFDL. Any copyrighted material should be immediately removed and if necessary, the page deleted. To check for copyright violations earwigs copyvio tool can be used and is usually very effective at finding copyrighted material.


 * Hoaxes and attack pages

All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. This means that hoaxes and misinformation must be removed as soon as possible to maintain the credibility of the encyclopedia and to protect readers from misinformation. Attack pages are pages that try to threaten or harass the subject or others. Any attack page should be immediately tagged for speedy deletion and blanked as a courtesy to the harassed parties.
 * ✅ PASSED Part 2
 * Hi and sorry for my recent inactivity, I have now completed the next tasks. Just to let you know, schools are reopening in the UK next week and so this will mean a change in the amount I am able to contribute (it may mean more often or less often). The impending return is also why I have been editing less often, as I have had exams and corona-virus tests flung at me. Thanks again for you patience, Skingo12 (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, - I just want to make you aware and cautious of excessive prying or badgering of any editor thought to have a COI. WMF's privacy rules are strictly adhered to, so if you come across an editor you believe has a COI, be polite, do not pry but it's ok to ask if they do or do not. You will be able to tell alot by the editing, but if you're unsure, contact one of the WP:COIN administrators and share your concerns. Ok, because of your erratic school schedule, you can go ahead and complete the next 2 sections as time becomes available, and ping me after each section is completed. I will ping you after I've reviewed them and will make you aware of any actual review exercises that you need to participate in.  Atsme  💬 📧 10:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)
This section is relative to New pages patrol
 * Discussions with creators of new pages

When communicating with new creators it is always important to remain polite, friendly and welcoming, especially with new users. It is important to assume good faith and not to bite the new creators. This is because if we did not AGF we would loose many potential editors. In addition to this, instead of “telling users off” we should point them towards the correct policy and answer any questions they have.
 * Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

Automated notifications are designed to save time for the issuer, and so should be used for routine warnings and notices. However sometimes a automated template can't convey the tone or intention accurately, or may be seen as unnecessary or rude. In this case a manual message should be placed on the appropriate tall page. This is also more likely to start a discussion or receve a response. This is vital for NPP as it allows the reviewer to question the page author on their intentions and to offwe advice or anwer questions.
 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

When discussing possible issues with users, or just disgussing anything, it is important to alway be polite and helpfull. No one benefits from a short "do it yourself" reply. Instead one should always try to simplify the appropriate guidance and help the user understand. Instead of writing a thousand word text wall, it is usually best to be breif but clear when explaining anything. However it is also important to defer to other editors who may be more experinced on the subject and to listen to any advice they may have.
 * "disgussing" - little Freudian slip there? *lol*
 * Wikilove/positive comments

Wikilove, for example barnstars and the "thank" feature, is a way to show appreciation to a editor who has put in the effort to make changes or add new content. It is an important part of the wikipedia community and should be given in its appropriate form whenever it is deserved. It is also a way to encourage new and regular editors alike that their contributions are both noticed and greatly appreciated. From personal experience, there is nothing better then working on something for the good of the wiki (a satisfying task on its own) and then having another user notice and thank you for it.


 * Warning templates

The warning template system is used to save time and notify users of what they did wrong, where they did it and how to avoid it in the future. The warnings range from a level 1 to a level 5, or an instant level 5. There are also single issue notices that should only need to be issued once. After a user breaks policy and a edit is reverted, the appropriate level notice should be issued. The next time the user breaks policy in the same month the next notice should be issued. This process is repeated untill they have been given final (level 5) warning. After this they should be reported to AIV.

This system is usefull as it allows patrollers to see what the user has done wrong in the past and how likley their edits are good faith. However the warning system should not be used when a discussion is nessescary.
 * "nessescary" - another little Freudian slip? *lol*


 * Hi, and thanks again for your patience. I have a bit more free time now so I should be able to complete the next few exercises shortly. Thanks again, Skingo12 (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Passed Part 3 - but with a bit of advice to slow down and proofread your comments (use Show preview while still in edit mode and a SpellChecker). Intelligible, friendly communication is paramount for NPP. What we don't want is for article creators to interpret the review of a patroller with thoughts of WP:CIR, or perhaps ignore their suggestions.  Atsme 💬 📧 14:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

 * Articles for Deletion

The AfD process is to be used to delete any article that an editor feels should not be on the wiki. It should be used if the nominator expects the deletion to be controversial or if the page has already been proposed for deletion (and has ben contested or undeleted). After adding the relevant tags and notifiying contributors the deletion will be discussed for seven days, after which a uninvolved admin will determine consensus and either delete the page or remove the tags. If consensus has not been reached the page will not be deleted.
 * BEFORE nominating

Deletion should only be used when normal editing cannot fix whatever problems the page has. Before deleting a number of steps whould be taken: If deleting for vandalism, checking the page history for a stable, unvandalised version; making sure the problems cannot be fixed with normal editing (if it can, fix it or tag it); copyright issues should be reported to the copyright issues notice board; if the deletion meets the CSD, use that instead; if the deletion is uncontroversial and eligible, use PROD instead. Deletion should be approached from a 'reasons to keep' viewpoint, rather then a 'reasons to delete' viewpoint.
 * PROD and BLPPROD

PROD, or the proposed deletion process, is used for uncontroversial deletions that do not need to be discussed with the AfD process. PROD can only be used if the page has not been PRODed and contested before. To propose a page be deleted, the appropriate templates must be placed and the relevant contributors notified. Anyone, including the page creator, can contest a deletion. If after seven days nobody has contested the deletion, an uninvolved administrator can delete the page (or contest the deletion). Once a page has been PRODed and contested or undeleted, it cannot be PRODed again.

BLPPROD is very similar to the PROD process, with a few differences. A BLPPROD can be used on any BLP article with no sources ""at all"" (as long as the page has not been PRODed before). The BLPPROD can only be removed when a ""reliable and acceptable"" source has been added. After 7 days the page can be deleted, similarly to the PROD process. An article can be PRODed even if it has had a failed BLPPROD.
 * Soft deletion

Soft deletion is a failed proposal, whereby instead of 'hard deleting' a page, it is instead moved to a dedicated namespace where it can be improved on by other editors, but is out of public view. This proposal failed, however processes such as draftification and userificarion, where the page is moved to userspace or draftspace, can be used when the page needs extensive work to fix, or a few more sources are needed to demonstrate notability.
 * Speedy Deletion

Speedy deletion is used when a page meets very specific Criteria for Speedy Deletion, for example blatant copyvios, or attack pages (G10). Anyone who js not the page creator can remove the tag, and this indicates that the deletion is controversial and that the AfD process should be used instead. Any uninvolved admin can delete the page if it meets the criteria.


 * Hi and once again, thank you for your patience. I have completed the two sections and am now much more available to complete any reviewing exercises. Thanks again, Skingo12 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion exercises

 * Rolf Mager - I am expecting you to dig deep when reviewing this biography, and provide a numbered list of what steps you took.


 * The Centre for Public Policies of the Cracow University of Economics - same expectations as above.


 * - you can either complete Pt. 5 first, or complete the above exercises first. I recommend the former first as it will serve as a refresher before jumping into the above exercise.  Atsme 💬 📧 14:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * - ok, you've completed the sections but you didn't do the deletion exercise. If you're still interested in NPP, then I need to update the exercises for you to review, and you're going to need the time to finish them. Are you sure you have the time and the desire to work NPP? I'm somewhat concerned that your schooling demands most of your time, and it is far more important than WP. To be proficient as a NPP reviewer, you need to be reasonably active.  Atsme  💬 📧 02:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

 * Improvement Tagging

Tags can be used to alert the reader and other editors to possible issues, or areas for improvement, for an article. Some tags are automatically logged on other pages (such as the guild of copy editors) and form an important part of Wikipedia. When adding a tag it is important to add a reason parameter, or leave a explanation on the talk page or edit description, as it can sometimes be hard for other editors to determine what the tagger was concerned about. It is also important not to over tag (or “tag bomb”) as this is usually unnecessary as there are both specific and general tags, which can cover several areas. For example it is not usually productive to add a “peacock words” tag and a POV tag. When patrolling the new pages feed, tags can be used to flag articles that need a lot of attention, or an expert, but are still “good” enough to be marked as reviewed.
 * Categorizing


 * Stub

-- Hi, I have now completed the first section. Sorry it took so long! Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, - let's keep this section open because we will be discussing all of the sections here once they've all been completed. Keep related comments in their respective sections. Thank you!  Atsme  💬 📧 15:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Notice: - if you want to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active at WP:NPP, then this program is probably not for you, so I'm going to hat this discussion and archive the page. If you would still like to help maintain the quality of WP, perhaps patrolling vandalism is a better option for you. It is an essential function that requires less knowledge of WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:Deletion. See WP:CVUA for training on counter vandalism."  Atsme  💬 📧 12:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Closing discussion

 * Overall evaluation

Tips

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

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

Welcome New Trainee! Instructions:, below is a quote from the lead at New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider: "If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you. Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Notability Guidelines and Deletion. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA."

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

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

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

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cake walk, and has been referred to as a step under becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

 * Notability

I have learned that nobility is generally based on how well-covered it is. Per the notability criteria (both GNG and SNG), the sources must be reliable, independent, non-promotional, and un-trivial. To add, the content of the article should not determine the notability, as well as that notability is permanent. if the trend of the topic depletes, that does not mean that the notability is gone.


 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)


 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)


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


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

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

 * Assume good faith


 * Biographies of living people


 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)


 * Copyright


 * Hoaxes and attack pages

Communications (Pt. 3)
This section is relative to New pages patrol


 * Discussions with creators of new pages


 * Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss


 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions


 * Wikilove/positive comments


 * Warning templates

Deletion (Pt. 4)

 * Articles for Deletion


 * BEFORE nominating


 * PROD and BLPPROD


 * Soft deletion


 * Speedy Deletion

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

 * Improvement Tagging


 * Categorizing


 * Stub

Discussion

 * Question, what if the article creator gets stubborn when you mark the page for deletion even if you gave them warnings? Also, I completed the NPP tutorial. Pink Saffron (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your question will be addressed during the course. I will respond further at your training page. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 12:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have finished reading the 1st part Pink Saffron (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

--- - in response to your question on my UTP,Now moved here 15:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC) the deletion process will be discussed in more detail in Part 4, but first things first. Begin with Part 1 with the thought in mind that you will acquire a better understanding of the process overall as we work through all 5 Parts sequentially. NPP training will help you develop patience and a more thorough understanding of WP:PAG, which will help you to avoid conflicts while developing a kinder, more welcoming approach when reviewing new articles that is (1) compatible with Code of conduct, (2) helping to build the encyclopedia, (3) a more welcoming approach to newbies in compliance with our PAGs, and (4) a means of developing a better understanding of the WP community so that you can grow as a productive editor. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 13:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have finished reading the first part, what's next?
 * I just highlighted the instructions because it appears you may be in too big a hurry and are not paying attention. That is not a good sign for a NPP reviewer. If you want to pass this course, I highly recommend that you slow down a bit and indicate to me that you are going to be a thorough reviewer who is here to help build the encyclopedia by doing good work, being helpful and patient with article creators, and that you know WP:PAGs almost as well as you know the back of your hand. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 15:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have responded to the first subsection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Saffron  (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , remember to sign your comments.^^ There are 5 Parts to the full lesson; each part has several subsections. You are expected to complete each Part which includes the relative subsections while maintaining proper formatting. I saw that you self-reverted important material about N that would have been best left in your response. A summary doesn't have to be a single paragraph. I want to know what you believe are the most important aspects of each Part but don't overindulge or go so far as to recite the actual policy/guideline; a 2 or possibly even 3 paragraph summary, if you feel inspired, is certainly acceptable. It may prove helpful for you to create an article or two of your own using the WP:AfC process. Hands-on experience makes a substantial difference in one's ability to patrol the work of others as does editing experience and knowledge about presenting material in context, citing it properly, and formatting an article per MOS, all of which is part of your job as a NPP patroller. NPP isn't just about notability. After you complete each of the 5 Parts, ping me from this page . I may not respond right away because it is the weekend. Oh, and remember the ping will not work if you forget to sign your post. It's a common mistake, and the quick fix is to add another ping below the unsigned one. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 13:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Tips

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

Userbox
This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

User:Houseblaster
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 46em; box-shadow: 0.3em 0.3em 0.8em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> Notability in a nutshell Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject. See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.

Welcome New Trainee! Instructions:, below is a quote from the lead at New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider: "If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you. Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Notability Guidelines and Deletion. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA."

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

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

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

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cake walk, and has been referred to as a step under becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 20:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

 * Notability

Notability is a trait of the article's subject, not the article itself. Notability can be boiled down to the following question: "Have third parties (plural) taken an interest in the subject without being paid to do so?" Unpacking this a bit, usually, this is the case when multiple publications with a reputation for accuracy take the time to write in-depth about the subject of the article. Sometimes, in specific cases, there is consensus that an achievement by the subject of the article means that they are presumed to be notable (such as winning an Olympic medal). While a significant part of determining if a subject is worthy of an article, it is not the only one - it must also not be on the list of what Wikipedia is not, meet any other relevant policies or guidelines, and, as this is Wikipedia, everything here is to be treated with a small dose of common sense.
 * I know I am supposed to work through an entire section, but I just wanted to stop here and make sure that this is what you had in mind? Thank you so much for agreeing to help me out! HouseBlastertalk 21:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ PASSED – You're welcome! Yes, good job! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 22:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The general notability guideline lists the standard criteria used to determine notability of a subject. To meet the GNG, the subject of the article needs to be discussed in detail in (but not necessarily the main subject of) secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. Passing the GNG does not guarantee that the subject should have an article, but they are certainly more likely to deserve one than a subject which does not meet the GNG. If an article does not meet the GNG, it may pass a relevant SNG and thus be presumed notable, its may be merged into a different article, it may be a good candidate for a redirect, or it may need to be deleted in its entirety.
 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)
 * ✅ PASSED.

Each SNG is slightly different, but in general (pardon my pun), the SNGs expand upon the GNG and establish guidelines to be used to determine if a subject is notable. Normally, a topic is presumed notable if it passes either the GNG or an SNG. Some SNGs detail when a subject should not have an article, such as WP:NFILM or WP:NBIO. Others, such as WP:NBOOK expand upon what counts as "significant coverage". Some raise stricter standards than the GNG for notability, such as WP:NORG. Finally, some provide alternative ways in which a subject can be presumed to be notable, such as a place with a legally recognized population (under WP:NGEO) or a professor who receives a prestigious national award (under WP:NACADEMIC).
 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)
 * ✅ PASSED
 * Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest
 * Companies are presumed to be notable if they meet the general notability guideline, or NORG. This SNG still requires that the subject of the article be the subject of reliable independent sources as discussed above, but also takes into account recentism. For example, a new hedge fund created in New York City would be expected to have more sources than a group of women fighting the Nazis in the Second World War. Extra care must also be taken to ensure the sources are truly independent, as companies have a vested interest in using, for example, glowing reviews that they commissioned as sources.
 * ✅ PASSED
 * Notability (geographic features)
 * This SNG applies only to places on Earth (in other words, fictional and extraterrestrial geographic features cannot be presumed notable by meeting this SNG). Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable, as are named natural features. Google Maps, Disputed regions and places without legal recognition are not inherently notable, and are to be decided on a case-by-case basis. They may be presumed notable if they pass the GNG, or the article could be merged into an article covering a broader topic (such as merging an article on a region disputed by Country1 and Country2 into the article covering border disputes between Country1 and Country2). Artificial geographic features are presumed notable if they are protected as a national/cultural heritage site, provided that more than statistics can be verified about the building. Otherwise, the manmade structure needs to meet the GNG, and particular caution needs to be taken to ensure that requirement for sources to contain non-trivial coverage as almost any building receives some passing mentions (for example, a building appearing on Google Maps does not count towards meeting the GNG).
 * Is this a good summary of NGEO? I want to make sure I fully understand it. HouseBlastertalk 21:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ PASSED Apologies, I overlooked it. Yes, it's a good summary, and I'll add that these are guidelines, not policies. Common sense, and critical thinking skills that help guide you beyond these written guidelines are important. Having said that, I'll point you to Notability in a nutshell at the top of this page. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The first thing I would do is take a brief glance at the article and ensure that it is not an obvious CSD, such as WP:G1 or WP:A3. I would then check for any copyright violations, as it is crucial to delete copyvios as soon as humanly possible. Next, I would turn to notability. I would check the cited sources to see if the topic meets either the GNG or the relevant SNGs. If it does not based on the sources already present in the article, I would do a WP:CONRED search. If sources are not present in the CONRED search, I would take the article to AfD or, if uncontroversial, PROD it. I would be happy to expand this answer if the question is looking for a little more of the process, but I felt this is what would be considered "initial steps".
 * Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
 * I have finished the above. HouseBlastertalk 16:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ PASSED - Well done! I'm thinking you're ready for some practice reviews. Go ahead and start Pt 2 while I line-up a few articles for you to review. I will ping you to the exercise. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 17:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise
HouseBlaster, I will list 3 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with what you looked for first, what issues you found, if any, and what actions you would have taken/did take. Feel free to copy edit and/or find & cite sources if needed.

1. Ashley John-Baptiste
 * Not an obvious CSD at first glance, and the copyvio detector did not turn up anything. Digging into the sources already present, I have come to the conclusion that he is just barely notable. While most of the sources in the article are press releases/other non-independent sources, there are a few high-quality sources that meet the criteria set out in WP:NBASIC. What tipped me over the edge were these three sources which are all independent of John-Baptiste, reliable, and secondary. Therefore, this article is presumed to be notable. I would mark the page as patrolled, as it does not appear to need any tags. I also rated the article as start-class.
 * ✅ PASSED – excellent evaluation. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 23:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

2. Patushay
 * Passes the CSD sniff test. Running a copyvio check returns a website that copied part of its text from Wikipedia, so no issues there. Finally, getting into notability, it claims to be a legally recognized location with a population. However, going through the sources, I was unable to find a single RS that supports this claim. I was also unable to find anything beyond some Facebook postings during a CONRED search. There was also nothing in the few sources that would allow the article to meet the GNG or another criterion of NGEO. Therefore, I would take the article to AfD. I would not PROD it as I seem to recall there being a sizeable discussion on NGEO recently, and as such I would rather err on the side of caution. I have not actually taken the article to AfD yet so I can be sure I applying NGEO correctly. The subject is verified to be a legally recognized, populated place, and as such is presumed to be notable under NGEO. I removed some loaded language from the article, in addition to some miscellaneous fixes. I rated the article as start-class and assigned it to WikiProject India. I would mark the article as patrolled.
 * See schools.org.in, Google maps, govt. degree college, plenty of schools...and so forth. It passes WP:GEOLAND - "Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable".  Take a look at Schools/Arguments as they could also apply.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 16:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ PASSED – I really like and appreciate your response. Good job!!

3. Acorn (book)


 * Passes the CSD glance test. However, upon initially running the copyvio detector, it determined that there was in fact a copyright violation/plagiarism issue. However, I have never actually encountered a copyvio in the mainspace previously (my experience with copyvios is from the file namespace, where I will occasionally do some work). I removed the copyvio, but wanted to ensure that I followed the correct procedure before giving the editor a Uw-copyright. As to notability, there are two sources which give non-trivial coverage to the book itself, which satisfies the first criterion of WP:BOOKCRIT. Therefore, the article is notable. I added the article to WikiProject Books, and rated it stub class. Once the copyright violations are resolved, I would mark the page as patrolled.
 * I have completed the above. HouseBlastertalk 13:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ PASSED – good job! I marked it as reviewed.  Just an fyi - the curation tools help automate the process somewhat, and as you progress as a reviewer, we're open to suggestions for improvment. You passed the exercise portion. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 15:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)
The title of this guideline is a good TL;DR of the guideline. Even if someone is being harmful to the encyclopedia, one should assume that they are trying to be a positive contributor. If you are given evidence to the contrary (such as replacing the entirety of a page with "Fuck John Doe I hate him he is the worst ever"), then you have fulfilled your obligation to assume good faith: one should not invent good faith where none exists. Constructively criticize the edit, not the editor.
 * Assume good faith
 * ✅ PASSED. The title is indeed self-explanatory. Has your work with vandalism helped you any in this department? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 23:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It has and it has not. Making assumptions that are frequently proven to be misplaced is harder than making assumptions that are frequently proven to be true. On the other hand, by necessity I have learned to account for this. Practice makes perfect, and this is definitely the rule I have the most practice with. HouseBlastertalk 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies to any content about a living person in a Wikipedia article, whether they are the subject of the article or not. Information that might be challenged must be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source. Anything contentious not accompanied by a citation about a BLP should be removed from the article, without delay. For privacy reasons, we also avoid publishing the full name or date (not year) of birth unless the same has been widely reported on by reliable sources; we also do not include contact information for a living person in any Wikipedia article.
 * Biographies of living people
 * ✅ PASSED. Just want to add that some BLPs can be highly contentious, so if you have any doubts about a submission being an attack page, or overly promotional but are not quite sure, just ask at Talk:NPP. Also, there have been a few occasions that VRT (formerly OTRS) has received correspondence that confirms DOB, or a concern that may have originated with the WMF, who then contacts VRT. If there is a ticket # or claim that information has been sent to WMF that confirms unpublished information, it is best to contact an admin or VRT editor who has access to those tickets.  BLPs are taken seriously, make sure you are very familiar...even beyond what this course prescribes. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 00:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A COI is present when an editor has an "external relationship" with a subject. It is strongly discouraged to write about a subject with which you have a COI. Instead, they are encouraged to suggest edits on the article's talk page. An exception to this is the BLP policy: removing uncited contentious information about a BLP is encouraged. When discussing a potential COI, it is important to remember that the policy against WP:OUTING still applies. An editor with a COI should disclose it, either on the article's talk page, in edit summaries, or on their user page. Paid editing is when someone is paid to edit an article. Paid editing must be disclosed. Undisclosed paid editing is not just policy, it is part of the Terms of Use.
 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)
 * ✅ PASSED. It appears to me that you have a good basic understanding of BLP.

Every creative work is "copyrighted" by the creator of said work. While copyright expires (usually, 70 years after the death of the creator), beforehand, the copyright holder has the exclusive rights to copy/distribute the work. In some cases, including here on Wikipedia, we use a free license under which the creator releases some of their rights, allowing for reuse if certain terms are followed. In fact, content contributed to Wikipedia is dual-licensed under two free licenses. Because it is illegal to reuse copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder, anything that is under copyright must be removed from Wikipedia immediately, unless it is licensed under CC BY-SA or the copyright holder has granted permission.
 * Copyright
 * ✅ PASSED. Copyrights can be complicated, so if you ever have an issue, don't hesitate to consult Copyright problems.

A hoax article is a article detailing something that is completely made up and presented as fact. If an article is a hoax, it should (in order of blatancy) be tagged for speedy deletion, PROD'd, or brought to AfD. Care should be taken as there have been occasions in which multiple editors have thought something was a hoax, but turned out to be a real but obscure topic. This is fundamentally different from articles about the oxymoronic "real hoaxes", which are articles about a hoax made up outside of Wikipedia. Of course, for a hoax to be covered, it must be notable. These article must make it clear that the hoax is in fact a hoax.
 * Hoaxes
 * ✅ PASSED.

An attack page is a page whose content only serves to "disparage or threaten" its target. Assuming that it was always an attack page, the page should be tagged for speedy deletion. In the meantime, the page should be blanked. This applies to pages inside and outside of the mainspace. If the page is an article whose topic is notable, it should be replaced with a neutral stub after deletion. If a section has been spunout from a larger article, there is consensus that it is not an attack page. However, extreme care must be taken that there is a good reason the content was spunout, and that all of the inherently controversial information is cited to a reliable source.
 * Attack pages
 * I have finished the above. I hope you do not mind that I seperated hoaxes and attack pages into two different subsections, as I felt it would be better to address them separately. HouseBlastertalk 17:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ PASSED. I don't mind at all, and appreciate the fact that you did separate them. Good job!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 18:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)
This section is relative to New pages patrol

When discussing anything, it is important to stay polite. Frequently, new pages are created by new editors, and it is especially important to ensure that you do not bite the newbies. It is important to assume ignorance of the rules rather than malicious intent. Avoid the use of wiki jargon, and be very careful to talk about edits, not editors. Finally, be transparent with newbies. For example, if you leave a tag on an article, a quick note to explain what it is and when/how it can be removed is be extremely helpful. As a personal anecdote, my first experience being a Wikipedia editor was (incorrectly) removing these maintenance templates having clicked on the "learn how and when to remove this template message" button. Time flies!
 * Discussions with creators of new pages
 * ✅ PASSED. Yes, time flies!  Hanlon's razor is indeed a good approach. One that I use when approaching new users is to let them know I'm on their side, and encourage asking questions. Inviting them to the Tea House is another helpful approach. Most importantly (and hardest to maintain), is to not lose patience. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 20:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

Templates are very generic. In general, the only thing that can be changed about them is the article they refer to. Some issues, like lacking inline citations, are fairly run-of-the-mill and thus are an appropriate use of templates. If the issue is more nuanced, then it is definitely more appropriate to take the time to leave a message, in your own words. When leaving a message in your own words, it is important to include wikilinks to the relevant policies and guidelines, and to ensure that the message is polite.
 * ✅ PASSED. 100%
 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

In a phrase, avoid this nonsense. Ensure that you are actually understand the policy/guideline you are talking about, and clearly articulate the policy when discussing with a new editor. I have nominated your article for deletion because it does not appear to be notable, as it does not pass the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for places. The deletion discussion can be found here. I know, having an article you wrote nominated for deletion is not fun! If you think I made a mistake, or have any questions, please leave me a message. Thank you. HouseBlastertalk 02:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC) is a better message than I have nominated your article for deletion per WP:NGEO. HouseBlastertalk 02:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC). Ensure that you clearly explain the policies/guidelines you link to. Finally, remember that civility and kindness go a long way, on Wikipedia as well as in the real world.
 * ✅ PASSED! Absolutely - really like how you think!!
 * Wikilove/positive comments

The best part of the job. The most basic way to spread Wikilove is to click the "thank" button, but if someone takes the time to write a quality article, you can take the time to write them a quality "thank you." Leaving a welcome message is a nice touch, if they are a relatively frequent contributor. If the article is simply amazing, a barnstar might be appropriate. The bottom line is that showing your appreciation for positive contributions to the encyclopedia is just as important as helping newcomers understand the our policies and guidelines.
 * ✅ PASSED. That is a very nice, and welcoming sentiment. Well done!

Warning templates serve two purposes: first, they help the warned editor understand why their edits were reverted/article was CSD'd/etc. They also serve an administrative purpose: in general, you get 4 warnings before you get blocked, either because they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia or because competence is required to edit Wikipedia. The standard warnings are familiar to other editors so that they know what level warning to give, and useful to administrators so they know when a block is warranted. Other warnings are labelled "advisories". They do not come with a level, and are there to notify the editor of a policy or guideline that was not being followed. If sufficient warnings have been given, you should report the user to the appropriate noticeboard (usually either WP:AIV or WP:ANI). Finally, there are times when an issue is best addressed with a personal message. When writing your own message, it is important to clearly explain what the issue is, explain the relevant policies or guidelines, and encourage the editor to ask questions. As you said above, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask.
 * Warning templates
 * I have finished the above. HouseBlastertalk 18:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ PASSED. Well done - you will make far more Wikifriends and have your choice of collaborators with this approach.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 20:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)
AfD is the "normal" way to delete an article. There is a laundry list of reasons an article can be deleted, but the main reasons for deletion are if the subject is not notable, the page (and all of its revisions) are copyright violations, it violates the BLP policy, is entirely vandalism, or cannot be verified by reliable sources. AfD is used when deletion of the article in question can be expected to be controversial. In this vein, it is the "default" way to delete an article: if one is unsure if PROD or CSD is appropriate, it should be brought to AfD. AfD is not a vote, so there are times where the minority viewpoint prevails. It is also sometimes the case that the discussion finds an alternative to deletion. Besides deletion or the status quo, some of the most common outcomes at AfD include turning the article into a redirect, merging the article into another article, or moving it to the draft space.
 * Articles for Deletion
 * ✅ PASSED; just adding that if you haven't yet become familiar with WP:TWL or had a chance to visit the library, please do, and familiarize yourself with what is available to us. Sometimes articles that don't have sources showing up in a Google search actually are notable after a thorough search at TWL. Historic articles are another reason to check archives.  User:Megalibrarygirl (an admin and our go-to librarian) is also a helpful resource when looking for RS. There are other find-a-source options that you need to explore before nominating an article for AfD. I've lost count of the actual articles I've saved by doing the research - quality, not quantity are what matters in an encyclopedia, and we don't want to throw historic articles out with the bathwater just because we couldn't find the soap.
 * BEFORE nominating

A BEFORE search has four parts. The first is simply to ensure that you are correctly recalling the relevant policy guidelines, including the relevant notability guidelines. The next step is to determine that taking the article to AfD is really the way forward. If uncontroversial, it may be PROD'd. If it is a CSD, tag it as such. Check the page history to ensure that the article has always been in such poor shape. Check the talk page to see if someone has already raised the concerns you have, and that they have not been addressed. Also check that the article has not been recently nominated for deletion. You should also see the corresponding page in other languages for an idea of what other sources might exist. Sources do not have to be in English to be reliable. Step three is to ensure that there is no "fixing" the article. If editing the article would fix whatever problems are present, WP:JUSTFIXIT. You can also raise issues with the author, relevant WikiProjects, on the article's talk page, or by using maintenance tags. Finally, if the main concern is notability, you must at least perform a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search to find reliable sources with significant coverage independent of the subject. If an academic subject, a Google Scholar search is also appropriate. Databases in The Wikipedia Library will sometimes yield sources not found in the aforementioned Google searches. If sources are found, they should be added to the article. If not, you have completed your BEFORE search, and may proceed to AfD.
 * ✅ PASSED - see my comments in the subsection directly above this one.

PROD is a way to delete articles for miscellaneous and uncontroversial reasons. Once an article has been proposed for deletion or taken to AfD it is ineligible for PROD. Instead, it must be taken to AfD (or tagged for speedy deletion, if applicable). PROD is only appropriate if no opposition to deletion is expected. Of course, it is important to ensure that the article should actually be deleted before proposing it for deletion. Once an editor proposes an article for deletion by tagging the article in question with, it may be deleted after seven days. You should notify the creator and other relevant editors when you PROD an article, and tag the talk page with Old prod. Any editor (including the author) may remove the PROD tag, which permanently prevents the PROD process from proceeding. An unsuccessful PROD does not prevent a future BLPPROD (assuming that a BLPPROD would otherwise be appropriate), and vice versa: a previous BLPPROD candidate may still be proposed for deletion.
 * PROD
 * ✅ PASSED (adding some words of caution: If you have the least bit of doubt about a speedy, don't do it. Nothing is more irritating to our very busy admins than a misappropriated CSD.)

While the BLP policy applies to any information about a living person, BLPPROD applies only to articles about a living person without any references, in any form, narrowly construed (as in, lists of people, associations of people such as companies, etc., are not eligible for BLPPROD; an external link to a website of questionable quality is counted as a reference for the purposes of BLPPROD). An article should only be BLPPROD'd if it is certain that it is eligible for BLPPROD. If any doubt exists, a different deletion process (standard PROD, CSD, or AfD) is preferable to BLPPROD. To use BLPPROD, first one should conduct a WP:BEFORE search, and make sure that BLPPROD is the most appropriate process for deletion. Also check to ensure that the page has not been vandalized/had sources removed previously. To tag an article for BLPPROD, add  to the page and notify the creator/other significant editors of your action. To object to BLPPROD, a reference to a reliable source supporting an assertion about the living person must be added to the article. Then, the BLPPROD tag may be removed. If the source added is unquestionably unreliable, the BLPPROD tag may be re-added. If the source is of questionable quality, the article should be brought to AfD. Once an article has been tagged for BLPPROD for seven days, it may be deleted.
 * BLPPROD
 * ✅ PASSED – and follow it closely.

When an article is taken to AfD, there are times where when very few people !vote on a given nomination. In these cases, sometimes admins will close the AfD as WP:SOFTDELETE. When an article is soft deleted, it is treated as an expired PROD - the article is deleted, but can be undeleted by a request at WP:REFUND versus having to go to WP:DRV.
 * WP:Soft delete
 * Question about soft deletion: is a that was proposed for deletion, objected to, and then listed at AfD eligible for soft deletion? Not sure how relevant to NPP this scenario is, but I am curious. I have also finished part 4. HouseBlastertalk 01:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ PASSED With reference to "there are times" the correct adverb is when not where. As the nom, it is always good to follow-up after 7 days to check on the progress. If there's a possibility it will end up back in our NPP queue, see Deletion_process some measures you can take. You may also be approached by the article's creator and will be able to properly guide them as to the proper steps to take.

There is quite literally a laundry list of reasons an article can be eligible for speedy deletion. If the article and all of its previous revisions are eligible for speedy deletion, tag the article with the corresponding speedy deletion template and notify the creator/significant contributors. The creator of the article may not remove a CSD tag, but may click the "contest this speedy deletion" button and explain on the talk page why the article should not be deleted. Any other editor can remove a CSD tag, which signifies that the deletion is controversial and should be taken to AfD. If accurately placed on a page, an administrator will "speedily" delete the page.
 * Speedy Deletion
 * ✅ PASSED – as I cautioned above, be sure the article fits the CSD, and if in doubt, go with a PROD or AfD. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 02:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)
Tags are a way of pointing out problems with an article. In many cases, it is better to WP:JUSTFIXIT than to tag the article. However, there are some cases in which it is a better idea to tag the article, leave an explanation, and move on. For example, an article has a list of references at the bottom, but does not have any inline citations. The references are in a language the reviewer does not speak. In this case, tagging the article as no footnotes is appropriate. Another case is if expert knowledge would be needed to fix the problem, but the reviewer does not have expert knowledge. A tag is also appropriate if the problem is simply something the reviewer does not feel like volunteering to fix. When tagging an article, it is important to choose only a couple of tags, which should identify the most critical issues with the article. For instance, a potential copyvio is more important than the fact that the article is an orphan. It is also important to make sure the tag actually says what you think it says, and is an accurate description of the problem(s) in the article/section. As a final example, a section that has a single citation should not be tagged with unreferenced section (it should, assuming that more citations are required, be tagged with more references needed section). If the reason the tag has been added is not obvious, a note explaining the tag should be left on the talk page. This is always the case when tagging with a subjective tag, such as POV.
 * Improvement Tagging
 * ✅ PASSED

Categories identify characteristics of the subject of the article. For instance, a category might show that the subject is a sci-fi musical or tsunami. Categories are arranged like a tree, where all categories except for the "root" are a subcategory of another. For example, Fire Safety Journal is a member of Category:Occupational safety and health journals, which is a member of Category:Occupational safety and health, which is a member of Category:Health, which is a member of Category:Main topic classifications, which is a member of Category:Articles, which is a member of the "root" category, Category:Contents. Articles should be placed into the most specific category possible, for instance, place an article in Category:Jersey screenwriters rather than Category:Writers. When placing an article in a category, it is usually not necessary to place it in said category's parent categories. There is an exception to this guideline: when a category is a non-diffusing subcategory, the article should be placed into the parent category (or a diffusing subcategory, if a more specific category is available) in addition to being placed in the non-diffusing subcategory. As with all things on Wikipedia, categories should be objective and the articles added to a category should verifiably belong in it.
 * Categorizing
 * ✅ PASSED

A stub is an article that "lacks the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia". This only applies to articles that could possibly be expanded into an article of suitable length. There is no set length for determining when an article is no longer a stub, rather, it is a question of "does this article have very little information, taking into account how much information exists on the subject?". Stubs do not necessarily have to be articles of poor quality, but they frequently are. Likewise, an article of decent length should not be tagged as a stub because of poor quality. Instead, the problem should be fixed or a maintenance tag should be added to the article. When tagging an article as a stub, you should use the most specific tag available. If you are unsure what tag should be applied, you can tag the article with the generic stub tag and a stub sorter will sort the stub. You may tag an article with more than one stub type, but you should generally use whichever tag corresponds to what the subject of the article is notable for. There are very few cases where more than three or four stub tags are appropriate. When adding/removing a stub tag, you should adjust the WikiProject article class accordingly.
 * Stub
 * I have finished the above. HouseBlastertalk 18:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ PASSED

Evaluation
You have completed and PASSED the course (with flying colors)!! The evaluation is complete, and we look forward to your help at NPR. Good job, ! If you haven't already, check out the various tips/tools below that you may find useful. You may now apply for NPP user rights at Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review. Happy editing & reviewing! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 10:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Tips

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

Userbox
This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

User:Zippybonzo
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 46em; box-shadow: 0.3em 0.3em 0.8em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> Notability in a nutshell Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject. See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.

Welcome New Trainee! Instructions:, below is a quote from the lead at New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider: "If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you. Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Notability Guidelines and Deletion. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA."

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

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

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

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cake walk, and has been referred to as a step under becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 12:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the second go-round, !!

It is my pleasure to welcome back this hard-working applicant back to our NPPSCHOOL. This second go-round involves input relative to what the trainee has learned since completing the 1st go-round of NPP exercises. See the 2nd Go-round of training exercises below. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 15:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

 * Notability

Notability is whether an topic deserves an article, a topic is assumed to meet notability guidelines and be deserving of an article if it meets either a subject-specific notability guideline or the general notability guideline and doesn't fall under WP:NOT


 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)

The most important decider of whether a topic has good quality sources that have more than just passing mentions on a topic and so no original research is required to find the content. The sources also need to be reliable, for example, Fandom isn't reliable as it is ran by communities that all have different rules on sourcing. Secondary sourcing is also key, because they are generally a third-person view based off of primary sources.

Independent of the subject sourcing is always important as the sources may have a bias towards the subject, for example, a citation from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation wouldn't be independent in the article for Bill Gates. Lastly, Presumed means that the coverage should only create an assumption that the subject is notable enough for an article as it may fit better merged into another article.
 * ✅ – I'd really like for you to read this NOR discussion so you'll have a better understanding of NOR – it's a TL;DR candidate but do your best. I also want you to understand that research is customarily done to satisfy WP:V, and that is not OR.  While you are reading the NOR discussion look at the section titled Table. Also review this diff, and this one particularly (sup 1).  There were some pretty strong arguments throughout but I tend to align more with . There was also mention of NPP that discussion, so you might try a word search to find it and read that, too.  Another good read is common sense, and Common sense is not original research.  If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.  Anyway, my advice to you after reviewing and possibly tagging an article: if you're challenged over a NOR tag or any other tag for that matter – simply state your position and then unwatch the page. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 01:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on what I have read in those diffs and the noticeboard discussion, NOR means you can't place the contents of an experiment/study that you have done into an article as you aren't a reliable source and therefore you should find a reliable source instead. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

Politicians/Judges Guideline: A subject is considered notable if they have held international/national/state/province positions or have been elected but not assumed office yet, the same applies for members of legislative bodies at the same levels. Major local political figures with significant press coverage also meet the criteria.

Sports personalities:

A sportsperson would be considered notable if they have a significant honour (e.g olympic medal) and are likely to have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article also needs at least one source providing significant coverage.

Entertainers:

Actors, voice actors, celebrities etc, meet the notability guidelines if they have made unique or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment or if they have had significant roles in multiple notable films, TV shows, stage productions etc.

Crime victims and perpetrators:

If a person is only known for a connection to a crime, they generally don't merit an article, for victims/those wrongly accused or convicted for a crime, they need to have a large role within a well-documented even, the significance is indicated by reliable coverage of the event by reliable secondary sources that show significant attention to the victim's role.

For perpetrators, if the victim is a renowned figure or the motivation or execution of the crime is rare or noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event, if someone is accused of a crime, until proven by a court of law they are not guilty.

Creative professionals:

Architects, authors, journalists etc. are considered notable if they are regarded as important or widely cited by successors or peers, or if they are known for creating a significant new theory, technique or concept, if they have created or had a major role in creating a significant or well-known work that is considered notable, or if their works have become a significant monument or a substantial part of a notable exhibition or won significant attention or have been represented within a permanent collection of several notable museums/galleries

Academics:

Notability is likely if the subject has been influential in the world of ideas.

Any bio:

If the subject has received a well-known and significant award or has been nominated for such an award several times or made a significant contribution that is part of the historical record in a specific field or has an entry in a country's national biographical dictionary.


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

A company is likely notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in several reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.


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


 * 1) Copyvio check - probably using Earwigs copyvio checker
 * 2) Notability check - check reliability of the source (reliability and independence both fall under here) and the coverage.
 * 3) Check quality - look for typos and other indications of bad quality, if it is just typos, I would probably just run AWB on it
 * 4) Tag page - either for improvement or deletion
 * 5) DYK Nomination - if it meets the criteria
 * ✅ Also make sure the article complies with our 3 core content policies WP:V, WP:NPOV, & WP:NOR and read the banner at the top of this page again.
 * I would say that the core content policies fall under notability and quality check but I should have mentioned them. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, if you have ghost pings, it is because I messed up a little - So I finished the Pt 1. section, as I was unsure of whether the notability section is where I should stop or a subsection, so I just did the whole notability thing, Kind Regards, <b style="color:blue">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 17:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, - you can start the next section.  I do try to finish my evaluation of each section within a day or two of you completing it but I don't mind if you are 1 section ahead of me.  Please don't go beyond that because somewhere during the training, I will present you with some RL cases to evaluate, or my preceding evaluation may affect how you view future sections. I will ping you after I evaluate each section of your work. Thank you for asking.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 19:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 01:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

 * Assume good faith

Always assume that an editor doesn't mean to disrupt Wikipedia with their edits or comments, if a new page is in violation of some policies and made by a new editor, always assume they just don't know the policies, not that they are deliberately breaking them.


 * Biographies of living people

All quotations and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged requires an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Material in a BLP that is poorly sourced or unsourced should be removed without waiting for consensus. BLP articles should be written in a non-partisan manner.


 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)

COI editing involves writing about yourself, family, employers, clients or other relationships. Paid editors are required to disclose who they are paid by and who they are editing for and are strongly discouraged from editing the affected pages directly, they shouldn't review any affected pages at AfC or NPP or anywhere else.
 * What signs would you look for relative to paid editing, and what would you do if you believed an article was authored by a paid editor? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 22:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The username, a lack of sources and seeming to have a significant amount of knowledge about the topic are indicators of paid editing. I would discuss it with the user on their talk page and if they continued without disclosure I would report it at AN/I. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 06:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good response. Thank you. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 13:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Copyright

All creative works are copyrighted by international agreement unless they fall into public domain or the copyright is disclaimed, typically Wikipedia requires permission to use copyrighted content. If you knowingly use copyrighted materials it could create legal liabilities and hurt Wikipedia.
 * And what would you do if Earwig showed there was a copyvio?
 * CSD G12 if the majority of it was a copyvio and there was no version to revert back to and if a small section of it was a copyvio I would revert to the last good version and RD1 the revisions.<b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 06:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Another good response. Good job!! Thank you, Zippy! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 13:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hoaxes and attack pages

Suspected or proven hoaxes on Wikipedia should always be marked with hoax or image hoax templates and marked for deletion, if the article is found to be a hoax it is appropriate to warn the user.

Attack pages (pages intended to threaten or disparage their subject or negative and poorly sourced biographical material) should always be tagged with the db-attack template.

All of this is done - with hoaxes and attack pages I mentioned what the method for dealing with them is. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 15:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you've been doing good work at CVU. Thank you for your contributions. I asked a few questions above, and look forward to your feedback.  After you finish Pt 3, I will set up a few practice reviews for you. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 22:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)
This section is relative to New pages patrol


 * Discussions with creators of new pages

Discussing with the creator of a new page can help them learn about the policies and improve their pages, it can also encourage them to make more pages and help you understand the motive for creating the page which can help with finding if they are a COI or paid editor.


 * Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

When you report an editor to any of the administrators' noticeboards you must notify them, when you reply in a thread on your talk page, you can ping the editor or leave a talkback message, you can also subscribe to a section and get notifications when someone posts a message.
 * ✅ Also see essays WP:DTR and WP:DTA - adding a human touch is better.


 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

. Clarity is all about getting the point across. Knowledge of policies in discussions is what makes newer editors learn how to edit. All of these together along with Tone In Comments help form the Civility code.


 * Wikilove/positive comments

WikiLove and positive comments are to help encourage editors when they do something that helps the project significantly or over time. WikiLove can come in many forms, Food, Kittens, Goats or Barnstars.


 * Warning templates

Warning templates are for use when an editor has made an unconstructive edit and also helps administrators monitor when a user needs blocking, they have 4 levels, Level 1: AGF, Level 2: Bad Faith, Level 3: Cease and Desist, Level 4: Last warning, Level 4im: Only Warning.
 * ✅ Also refer to automated vs manual

All done, looking forward to the page reviews that you will assign. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 06:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise
, I listed 3 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (1) what you looked for first, (2) what issues you found, if any, and (3) what actions you would have taken/did take. Feel free to copy edit and/or find & cite sources if needed. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 13:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

1. Pantaloons I first looked for citations of which the page has none which infers little to no notability. The article could also do with an info box and needs a stub tag. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 14:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * First thing you should do is examine the edit history. This page does not qualify as a stub, and should be a redirect to Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail. Re-review and be BOLD. See this redirect. 15:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, in which case it could be marked as patrolled since it is a perfectly good redirect. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Agree, and there are alot like that in our NPP queue - check the edit history for prior redirects/AfDs, look to see if any expansion/updates/improvements were made, check RS, grammar, MOS – then act. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 18:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

2. Ministry of Public Education

Copyvio check shows no violation, the logo copyright banner at the top concerns me, so does the fact that Minister is spelt ministr and the lack of citations also worries me, I have tagged it for more citations and cleanup. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 15:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, it is important to first look at the edit history. Do that, and provide your response directly below. 15:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In which case, it seems to be a translated article that needs a cleanup so I would tag it with cleanup and unreferenced. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit history shows it was a redirect to List of education ministries. When you arrive at an article from a redirect, it shows at the top of the page: (Redirected from Ministry of Public Education)  I'm a bit concerned that you are not paying close enough attention to the edit history when you arrive at an article or redirect.  I'm going to give you 3 more exercises in hopes of seeing some improvement. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 18:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

3. List of Minister-Presidents of Rhineland-Palatinate List of Minister-Presidents of Rhineland-Palatinate has no copyvio but has a no citation tag at the top of the page which once again worries me but other than that the page is fine.<b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 15:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The curation tool tells me the article was created 19 July 2011 by Sundostund. See User talk:Jimbo Wales and my last comment in that discussion. Provide updated response directly below. 15:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I would contact the creator and discuss with them the importance of needing citations and draftify it for the time being and also check if it was reviewed at AfC. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I found Minister President of Rhineland-Palatinate which is a duplicate of this article. I first proposed deletion and then had second thoughts. The edit history in the list article showed a move from lowercase to uppercase which motivated me to look for potential redirects, and that's how I came across the duplicate article with a different title, so I made it a redirect in lieu of a prod. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 18:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Finished these reviews - Just out of curiosity, is it a coincidence that all these pages have no sources? <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 15:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was no coincidence that they all had issues. 😊 My responses are interspersed above. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 15:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have taken into account what you mentioned and will next time spend more time when looking at articles.<b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned above in Ministry of Public Education, I want to see some improvement in your review exercises. I'm concerned that you're not spending enough time reviewing each article. There's a reason they are in our queue, and it's important to pinpoint the right reason. None of us are perfect – we all make mistakes – the desired outcome is to make fewer mistakes, and not pick-up any bad habits in the process. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 18:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ And this is why we must be careful about who gets auto-patrolled rights. It never should have left draft space without RS. The jury is still out relative to whether or not NPP should take the time to find references or just tag it - I'm of the mind that we at least attempt a Google search to see if we're even close to WP:GNG, and if so, I would try to find at least 2 RS and add a tag saying it needs more. NPP/AfC are not the venues we want to rush through simply because we're pressed with a backlog. If we don't have the time, or want to take the time to review one of the more complex articles properly, it is better to skip over them, and leave them in the queue for another reviewer who does have the time. Also keep in mind that it is much better to fix an article that is likely to end up in the NPP queue again. Have you watched this video? Let me know what you think of it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 17:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Atsme The video is very interesting, it makes Twinkle look hard to use, also, should I move onto part 4 or wait for you to mark part 3? <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124;  <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 06:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are clear to continue. I have provided 3 more articles for you to review. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 08:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you closed that bracket, I was worried you were ending the course early but it was just a wiki text error. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124;  <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

4. Ingrid Schubert Given the fact that there are only 2 sources I would say that it is borderline meeting BLP and given that it used to be a redirect until the 21st of April and has an AfC invisible comment I would probably say that it was an AfC submission that has been copy-pasted to mainspace, but seen as a reviewer tagged it I would probably say that it could be improved after a while. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any RS that verified anything that is included in that person's biography. Were you able to find any? As long as that bio has been in existence, there was plenty of time to add more RS. If there are none we must consider WP:GNG – NPP should not have to prove a negative; i.e., that sources don't exist. I question if there are any historic records or even news clips. In the article Red Army Faction she is mentioned twice with no RS.  There's mention of a song written about her, and I found this but I cannot understand the lyrics. As bad a terrorist organization that she was connected to, there should be all kinds of RS available. Let me know what you find. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 22:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I can’t really find any reliable sources, I doubt it would survive AfD. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 06:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Agree, but at the same time, this person is deceased so we are not subject to the same CSD-type urgency as a BLP. The article is not well-written but it is cited to books written by Stefan Aust, published by Oxford Press, and what I believe falls under relies largely or entirely on a single source. It lead me to Andreas Baader, and then to Members of the Red Army Faction where Ingrid Schubert was initially redirected back in 2006. I tagged those other 2 articles.  As reviewers, we not only follow what's in our queue, we work to get articles suitable for mainspace, even when they're already in mainspace.  Reviewers now have "Add to the New Pages Feed" in our side menu which brings a pop-up menu asking if we're sure we want to add it to the NPP queue.

5. Thomasines

Firstly, it used to be a redirect until the morning of the 22nd of April, the highlighting citation thingy says that some of the books may be self-published, there are also a few duplicate sources. Again, it is a page that I would probably consider reverting back to the redirect but would probably leave a note for the person that removed the redirect first. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ That is one option. However, I believe there's adequate sourcing for inclusion. A blocked user created the article, and we tend to not trust blocked users. With the latter in mind, what typically follows is the removal/reverts of what they've edited. In this case, I'm of the mind the article is notable and doesn't need to be deleted or redirected but it does need some copy editing, and maybe closer scrutiny to make sure the cited sources actually support what's in the article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 22:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

6. Infinite Death

Given the fact one of the sources is generally unreliable according to that citation colouring script but the topic is notable and I would say that it is probably a start quality article seen as it mentions some rough info about the topic. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok...in the edit history, did you read this one? What has changed since that comment was made? The band itself may be notable, but is that album?  Notability is not inherited.  Did the album make the charts?  Do multiple RS exist to confirm its notability?  Provide your answer below. 22:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The album isn't particularly notable so it could probably be merged into the band page. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 06:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - these are the things I want you to see (spend time finding) when you first arrive at an article that needs reviewing. The more you review, the more proficient you will become. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 18:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

7. Area code 975

After running ReFill on it, I wouldn't say that the topic is notable given the sources only show basic info about the topic, there is even a notability banner on it, I would probably go back to that redirect. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The redirect may be a safe decision since Area code 816 is "one of the original 86 area codes created by AT&T and the Bell System in 1947", but was it one of the originals? What about WP:NOTDIRECTORY? I align with the tagging admin, Rosguill and would send it to AfD per NOT. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 22:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it would survive AfD given it falls under not. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 06:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 18:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Atsme, did these four reviews and remembered to check the history this time. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your feedback above. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 06:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , go ahead and complete Pt 4 & 5 – I want you to review 3 more articles but I will wait for you to complete the other portions and then will add the 3 so you focus on the work. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 18:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

8. Talviklassikko

There used to be a redirect to Liiga which I think is probably the way to go, otherwise the page could be taken to AfD and I doubt that it would survive AfD. PROD is similar option to AfD that would work as well. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 18:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Go look at it again. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 00:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

9. List of Malas

According to the history, it was originally part of the Mala (caste) page but separated due to the amount of space it took up within the page. Sources could be taken from the persons page if they do have one, I quickly cleaned it up and it probably still isn't that great quality-wise so it probably should be taken to AfD. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 18:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Go look at it again - looks like has been busy reducing the NPP queue, with perfect timing for this lesson as it actually serves to demonstrate to you an efficient NPP at work. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 00:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

10. JTBC

I don’t really think that this topic is notable as most of the sources are talking about multiple channels and the dubious own work claim on the logo page on commons don’t really make this a good article, I think that it could be taken to AfD or given a PROD tag. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 18:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good luck, Zippy!!
 * It is notable - it's worldwide. This was an easy one.  See JTBC Newsroom, and they have their own studios. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 00:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Done these 3 final reviews and I am awaiting your evaluation. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 18:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

 * Articles for Deletion

Articles for deletion is a venue for users to propose the deletion of an article and gain consensus for either keep or delete over a 7 day period, experienced users can close discussions or relist them allowing for more discussion, admins often patrol AfD to delete pages that have consensus to delete them. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 18:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * BEFORE nominating

Check whether the article doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep, if there are notability/sourcing concerns take steps to find reliable sources, check the history, read the article talk page, check if enough time has passed since the last nomination before renominating, check what links here in the sidebar to see how the page is used within Wikipedia, check for interlanguage links, check if the article can be improved, if the article was recently created leave time for the contributors to better develop the page, if the main concern is notability look for sources using Google, Google Books, Google News, and Google News archive, and (if appropriate) Google Scholar, the Wikipedia Library is also very helpful for this.<b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 08:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅✅ Well done!


 * PROD and BLPPROD

Proposed deletion is a simpler way of deletion and the only notice is a tag, similar to speedy deletion, users can oppose the proposed deletion and an uninvolved administrator will either delete the page or remove the PROD tag. For a page to be eligible for BLPPROD the page has to be a BLP and have no sources in any form. As soon as one source is added to the page, the BLPPROD tag can be removed. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:Soft delete

An article is soft deleted if the articles for deletion discussion had little to no participation, the page can be undeleted at requests for undeletion.<b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy Deletion

The criteria for speedy deletion which a page can be deleted under as long as it meets one or more of the criteria. There are different criteria for different pages, for example, there are user page specific criteria and then general criteria that apply across all pages.<b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Passed Pt 4 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 16:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

 * Improvement Tagging

Improvement tagging allows users to find pages that need improvements (e.g no sources, NPOV issues) and then fix them, the tags can be applied using the page curation tool, twinkle or by hand, the advantages of using Twinkle or the Page Curation tool is that they are automatically dated by month. Twinkle and the page curation tool give you a list of possible tags and twinkle will provide a box for you to add an edit summary with. You may wish to drop a note on the article talk page if you add tags that could be disputed. It is important not to OVERTAG as this may distract readers from the content. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Categorizing

Categorising can be done manually by adding a link to the category at the bottom of the page or by using HotCat or similar tools. Categories allow readers to find articles in certain topics, categories can also be used to generate a list of pages in JWB and AWB. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Stub

Stub tags are used to alert editors that a page is small (around 1 paragraph or less) and could be expanded, there are also topic specific stub tags, stub tags go at the bottom of the page. Stubs generally need one or two reliable independent sources otherwise the topic might not be seen as notable. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Passed Pt. 5 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 16:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have done part 4 and part 5. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Just in case the ping didn’t work I will send this. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I was in transit all day Saturday, pretty exhausted Sunday, and getting settled in today. I will provide 3 more reviews for you to complete before I provide an evaluation.  Study my comments in the prior reviews, take your time reviewing, and good luck. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 16:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

2nd Go-Round NPP exercises
1. Table tennis at the 2021 Southeast Asian Games – Women's team

Following the flowchart, the page is written in English, it doesn’t fall under G1, G2, G3, G10 or G11, it isn’ blank or nearly blank, it has sufficient context, no evident copyvio, it doesn’t have 2 or more sources but it doesn’t have a claim of importance and it is of an organised event so it would be a CSD A7. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 18:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Read Credible claim of significance – also see this article, and this one.

Now follow through with whatever action you would take as a reviewer for this article.
 * I would mark as reviewed and I have tagged with more citations needed. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 05:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you fully understand what happened and why A7 would not have been a good choice?
 * Yes, I would say that A7 is only for pages that have little to level of notability. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

2. Undo (company)

The page is written in English, doesn’t fall under G1, G2, G3, G10 or G11 isn’t blank or nearly blank and has sufficient context, no copyvio, it meets GNG but is uncategorised, and the page could be reviewed after the tagging. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 18:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and do the mark-up as if you were officially reviewing it.


 * As the page has already been tagged, I will leave it as there isn’t much more to do to it. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 05:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

3. Andrew Murphy (footballer, born 1993)

So, it’s in English, doesn’t fall under G1, G2, G3, G10, G11 and isn’t blank, has some context, has no copyvio and meets GNG and might need the birth date removing from the article name but could be reviewed after that. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and follow through on this one, too.
 * I have gone ahead and moved the page and added a stub tag, so the page can be reviewed after that.<b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 05:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When I first did a Google search for Andrew Murphy footballer, other sources came up in the search before the WP BLP, which may explain why the creator added a DOB. I moved it to Andrew Murphy (Scottish footballer) as a better descriptor.  I also did further research on this one because the curation tool showed it was previously deleted, and I wasn't quite convinced that it passed GNG. I went ahead and created a TP for this one, and added WP:WikiProject Football to the TP header. It's good to add project links to get more eyes on the article, and it also helps editors to see the article's history, its milestones, etc. Projects are helpful in confirming notability as well, such as WikiProject Football/Notability. I posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, just to be on the safe side, and an admin advised me the player is not notable. I tagged it A7 and hope the admin realizes it's an A7 candidate so we can avoid the time sink that can be AfD. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 15:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes, this does fall under A7 and I should have tagged it at the beginning. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One would think it does, but an admin removed the A7 and sent it to AfD despite the discussion at WP Football, which is still ongoing. Not much we can do about it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 17:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I have done the reviews and used the NPP flowchart, so hopefully this should be the last test reviews. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * – see my notes under each article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 22:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have followed through (under the assumption you mean do what I said needs doing) on all of them except Undo as another editor tagged it before I could get round to doing it. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 05:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , see my comments under each review. I am not convinced that you're ready, so I am adding a few more reviews. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 15:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

4. Gordano Rugby Football Club

A COI, no sources, a google search brings up nothing that shows notability, I have tagged with A7. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good luck! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 17:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

5. Bryconops giacopinii

The page has enough reliable sources to outweigh the less reliable ones, I have tagged with some unreliable sources and I think it can be marked as reviewed. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ See WP:SPECIES Verifiable species are typically notable, and usually kept. I created a TP header with project banner, rating, and class. Try to get in that habit. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 17:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

6. This Hell

The song isn't notable, however the artist is, therefore I added a PROD tag to the page as I don't think AfD would be necessary. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Actually, I think it is notable, the sources just aren't there, I have removed the PROD as it was inappropriate and I think that the page could actually be reviewed after tagging with more citations. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - the PROD will probably be removed by an admin because it's a song in an album. A redirect to the album would be a safer option - maybe there is still time to fix it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 17:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See Notability (music) - always check the WP:SNG guidelines as there are certain requirements for these types of topics. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 17:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One step ahead of you, just did the redirect to the album. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

7. James Holden (footballer)

The fact that a google search returns a BBC report that should be added, the topic is notable enough that the page can be reviewed. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Just an FYI and another example of why we need to create a TP with a talk header and add projects. See Articles for deletion/James Holden (footballer). It appears the new signing gave him just enough notability to keep the BLP Good call, Zippy. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 17:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will get into the habit of creating TP headers and adding the WikiProjects <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

8. Rajkumar (2022 film)

I think that this meets GNG and can be reviewed. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:NFF - does it pass? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 17:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really, I think a PROD will be the best option. I have already tagged it and I think that it shouldn't be reviewed as it doesn't pass WP:NFF. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I did try to do these reviews based on the previous reviews and have taken action on them. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 16:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - see my notes interspersed above. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 17:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

- you do enjoy using the word interspersed, I have responded to all the feedback that I think needs responding to, I am seeing a lot more ticks though, 😊. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, what comes after this? More reviews or evaluation? <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 19:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do, indeed enjoy using interspersed - it has an intergalactic ring to it, don'cha think? Having said that, I am openminded & willing to consider alternatives provided the new word makes me appear super intelligent...you know, well read.  There are indeed more ticks, of the good kind, and I am quite happy to see how much you've improved. In fact, it is a dramatic improvement.  And before I forget, I want to add that the CSDs actually are tough to make happen, and can't figure out why...it must be an admin thing. Anyway...evaluation comes next. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 22:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

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


 * While you did well in Part I - 5 which demonstrated to me that you have a good understanding of WP:PAG, you are not quite ready to work in NPP. Take some serious time studying the NPP tutorial, and when you feel that you completely understand every aspect of that tutorial, from the flow chart, to Triage, to New pages patrol, we can do more reviews without you having to take the course all over again. If you're ok with that, I will not archive this page.  Take your time - learn everything on that Tutorial page.  Working in NPP is not a cakewalk - but I believe you will be able to do it in time as you gain more experience. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 00:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will spend a month or two looking at the New page review flowchart and other things relating to it and I will go ahead and drop you a message on your talk page when I feel ready to finish the course. <b style="color:green">Zippybonzo</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">talk</b> 06:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Re-evaluation
Ok - I'm still happy with the responses in Parts 1–5, all of which passed. The reviews got a little sticky, but I saw a dedicated editor who actually wanted to learn, and by golly, you came back in the 2nd Go-round and kicked butt in 7 of the 8 reviews (discounting #1 which I consider a lesson learned). You put your thinking cap on, slowed down, did proper research, completed the course and PASSED!!!

You may now apply for NPP user rights at Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review. Happy editing & reviewing!
 * Congratulations, !!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 00:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, !!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 00:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Tips

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

Userbox
This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.