User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 4

User:Sirdog
 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 and Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA."

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

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

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

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!!  Atsme 💬 📧 13:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

 * Notability

Notability is a litmus test applied to topics to ascertain if it should have it's own article on Wikipedia. As a rule, such topics must have reliable and independent sources report on it. This is necessary to avoid the addition of information haphazardly to the encyclopedia. Notability is determined if an article meets an SNG for a given sub-set of topics, or the GNG for all other topics, and it does not fall under that which Wikipedia is not (e.g a dictionary, a soapbox for promotion, a directory, a blog, etc).

An important distinction is that not all topics that meet notability will have their own articles, but all topics that meet notability technically qualify for their own article. The community may decide that a topic is better served, even if notable, as merged into another article - among other options.
 * ✅ – Just an FYI - my course introduces the critical thinking side of WP:GNG and WP:PAG, which further explains the reason for the banner at the top of this page. We have guidelines, and we have policies – we also have exceptions; thus WP:IAR. It will not be easy to ignore core content policies unless deductive reasoning along with good common sense tells us a topic is indeed notable for obvious reasons that go beyond the multiple RS criteria, although there are no guarantees it will survive AfD; however, for the sake of the project, it is worth considering and presenting a sound deductive reasoning argument. While the inclusion of geographic locations, educational institutions and species are automatic inclusions, as are documented historic events that are verifiable, we must also consider a person or event that was either a "first" and/or represents a milestone that resonates historically but may have taken place before we had the luxury of world-wide media or the internet. You will probably find such occurrences relative to women in history more often than any other, and also women in countries today where such opportunities and/or recognition have been suppressed.  Atsme  💬 📧 11:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will keep that in mind! — Sirdog (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The GNG is the written guideline that lays out the things to look for explicitly when evaluating notability. As written, a topic is presumed to be suitable for it's own article if it has significant coverage in sources that are reliable and the sources are independent from the subject. Presumed means there is an assumption an article may be suitable, but it is not a promise. Consensus may be reached that the topic violates WP:NOT or that another action aside from a standalone article is most appropriate. Significant coverage means that the topic is addressed explicitly and in some level of detail. Original research should not be necessary to extract meaning from sources. This can get nuanced, however. This means a source should not superficially mention a topic, but nor does the source need to make the topic the main course to classify as "significant". Reliability means the source needs oversight regarding the information published so that Wikipedians can evaluate such notability verifiably. If the sources themselves are not reliable, then it is borderline impossible to evaluate notability. Sources should always be secondary - meaning a source that is analyzing or assessing a primary source (such as the topic in question being evaluated for notability). There is no brightline number of sources, as they vary in their quality and depth, but as a general rule there should be multiple. Independent excludes from consideration any source that is produced or closely affiliated to the topic. For example, press releases requested by the Final Fantasy XIV team would not be eligible as a source proving notability.
 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)


 * ✅ Well stated.

As time has gone on the community has come to a consensus as to what classifies as "notable" within particular topic areas such as film, academia, books, etc. The accepted guidelines are numerous, and links to them can be found at WP:NOTABILITY. Generally speaking, SNGs define verifiable criteria which has historically shown that notability-establishing sourcing exists. Thus, topics which pass SNG scrutiny more often then not merit an article. That does not mean an article passing SNG cannot be deleted or merged should an exception to the trend exist.
 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

SNGs, by their specific nature, also allow for granting greater assistance to editors - such as giving spelled out examples of sources and coverage (e.g for books, there is a footnote that explicitly goes over types of sites and sources which are and aren't good for meeting the "non-trivial" phrasing of criterion 1) to assist in determining notability. Similarly, the SNGs may assist in clarifying certain things that may intuitively seem notable but actually aren't (e.g the mere fact an individual is in an elected office does not within of itself mean they are notable; that typical applies at a state/province level or higher alongside other qualifiers).
 * ✅ (keeping what I stated above in mind).


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

As Wikipedia has increased in size, scope, and international reach organizations have become extremely interested in having both a) articles about them on Wikipedia and b) having such articles speak of them favorably. This is very problematic, as Wikipedia is not a promotional platform and it strongly discourages (and in certain cases prohibits) those with a conflict of interest from editing such topics. As such, the SNG on organizations and companies was developed to iron down such articles in Wikipedia's policies. It is split, generally, into the primary and alternative criteria. For an organization to be classified as notable it needs to meet the primary or alternate criteria or meet GNG on it's own.

The primary criteria is basically the GNG but with various safeguards and explanations so as to combat the issues mentioned above. Particularly, it emphasizes higher scrutiny on sources to avoid gaming. Thus, by it's nature, it lists various caveats. One such example is that significant sources may cover an organization due to them possibly participating in illegal conduct. Because the conduct of the organization - and not the organization itself - is the topic, such sources are generally not permitted to be used as establishing notability.

The alternative criteria go over various other scenarios that apply to specific types of organizations, such as both commercial and non-commercial organizations, schools, and the like. For example, in regards to religious organizations, just because a building that such an organization congregates in may be notable doesn't mean the organization is notable.
 * ✅ Well-stated!

My initial steps would be something to the effect of:
 * Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
 * 1) Is the article in English?
 * 2) Does the article have copyright violations?
 * 3) Does it fall under G1, G2, G3, G10, G11, or any other criterion for speedy deletion?
 * 4) Does the topic of the article fall under SNG or GNG?
 * 5) If GNG, does sourcing meet it?
 * 6) If sourcing doesn't meet it (or sourcing doesn't exist), can I find sourcing that does?
 * 7) If SNG, does it fall under any of the exclusionary guidelines of the particular SNG (e.g local elected office per above section)?
 * 8) If SNG and not excluded, does it meet SNG?
 * 9) If sourcing doesn't meet it (or sourcing doesn't exist), can I find sourcing that does?
 * ✅ Excellent. Good job,
 * I think I'm interpreting your instructions right in that you want me to do all of part 1, then ping for review, then all of part 2, and so on. My apologies if I went ahead on accident. I've also watched the video on page curation and read the NPP tutorial page. 😊 — Sirdog (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, – you interpreted correctly.  You may continue to Pt 2 while I evaluate your responses (hopefully) sometime today.  Atsme  💬 📧 11:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Pt 1  Atsme  💬 📧 11:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)
This is a guideline I'm quite familiar with as a vandalism fighter. It is the codified belief that all editors should assume that all other editors, regardless of perceived experience or hostility, are trying to in some way improve the encyclopedia (even if actions taken may be damaging in the short-term) unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. This does not preclude the ability to give criticism, however, as it is possible to criticize the actions of an editor without presuming their motives are malicious. It is also possible that editors may genuinely be trying to help but they lack the knowledge or know-how to do so within Wikipedia's current framework. Care should be taken when citing this guideline, as the citation of it within the wrong context may within of itself be a negative assumption.
 * Assume good faith
 * ✅ Nicely put. Occam & Hanlon were pretty smart cookies.

Wikipedia is widely used, with many search engines indexing it's results to dynamically display what Wikipedia says to a user without them even having to visit the site. Because this can have a very real and dramatic effect on people if covered by Wikipedia, WP:BLP is an extremely strict set of policies that go over how editors are required to cover an individual who is currently alive. Sourcing needs to be immaculate, the tone should be written with care and be the pinnacle of neutrality, any statement that most likely will be or has been challenged must be removed immediately if unsourced, any criticism or praise given to a subject must be balanced as is appropriate and reported by sources, primary sources are a big no-no for proving identifiable qualities, and so on. The policy is a bit vast, but I believe those were the really big sticking points.
 * Biographies of living people
 * As I mentioned, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, the policy makes quite a big deal about not using primary sources to verify information such as DoB and stuff. The policy doesn't go on to explain why, though. Would it be because that would be in breach of WP:BLPPRIVACY? This makes me feel a bit bad as back in March I told another user that linking to a marriage certificate would sufficiently prove marriage. Was that a violation of BLPPRIMARY?
 * –accumulative experiences as a WP editor and member of WP:VRT have taught me that it's best to find RS that have published the dates, typically obits, and possibly verifiable images of grave markers (usually people of historic significance). If the person is deceased, it's not a BLP issue. I'm of the mind some editors dispute dates as their specialty, but of course, we AGF.  I have also experienced a sitch that, while widely published, there were conflicting birth dates. The BLP wrote to WMF, and WMF advised VRT to handle it.  I initiated the first email correspondence with the BLP, and had them submit documented proof. Of course, only members of VRT are privy to the correspondence, so all I could share was the ticket# for verification of the correct birth date – problem solved.  Atsme  💬 📧 13:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * –accumulative experiences as a WP editor and member of WP:VRT have taught me that it's best to find RS that have published the dates, typically obits, and possibly verifiable images of grave markers (usually people of historic significance). If the person is deceased, it's not a BLP issue. I'm of the mind some editors dispute dates as their specialty, but of course, we AGF.  I have also experienced a sitch that, while widely published, there were conflicting birth dates. The BLP wrote to WMF, and WMF advised VRT to handle it.  I initiated the first email correspondence with the BLP, and had them submit documented proof. Of course, only members of VRT are privy to the correspondence, so all I could share was the ticket# for verification of the correct birth date – problem solved.  Atsme  💬 📧 13:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia which presents information neutrally and in a formal tone. A conflict of interest is when an editor participates in topics on Wikipedia that they are closely related to. This tends to undermine the ability for an editor to write formally or neutrally, as doing so about topics closely related may cause the editor to write in a favorable (or unfavorable) manner when they need to be remaining neutral.
 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)

A COI can take, generally, 2 forms. The first form is when an editor is just closely related; the topic may be family member, a client of theirs, or a business they run or work for. The second form is when an editor is being monetarily compensated by an entity to perform edits on Wikipedia. Many businesses may pay contractors, or their own employees, to edit their relevant Wikipedia article. If the article doesn't yet exist, the individual may be paid to create it. This historically has caused issues on Wikipedia as the goals of the employer, and thus employee, tend to be in direct conflict with Wikipedia's.

For the 2nd form, the terms of service as set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation requires that such users disclose the following: what entity is paying them, who the client of the payment is, and any other affiliation that may be appropriate to the topic. For example, a Google employee paid to edit the relevant article would state that they are paid by Google and that the payment is so that they edit that article. Failure to do is classified as undisclosed paid editing which may result in sanctions from an administrator if it persists.

Any level of a COI should be disclosed, however, the difference is that for paid editing the Wikimedia Foundation mandates the disclosure.


 * ✅ In cases of biographies & BLP, an editor considered a friend of the subject does not create a direct COI, but it may introduce bias or even WP:OR, inadvertent or otherwise. If such is the case, it's always best if the friend invites uninvolved editors to oversee their contributions, and help contribute to the article. It is not necessary to publicly disclose those situations because it could be considered a form of OUTING.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Does policy demand the disclosure of a none UPE COI? As in, can it result in sanctions if not performed willfully? The COI page really leans on you should but avoids phrasing it as a requirement aside from paid editing.
 * WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE clearly states: If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. It further states that you "must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status." The definition of must = obligation = morally or legally bound.  If a UPE COI is not disclosed, and others learn of it or suspect it, the UPE and their work will be subjected to close scrutiny because of the distrust they created by not disclosing, and while each situation is different, there are risks of being blocked or site-banned and having their work deleted. It's always best to let WP:COICOIN handle those situations.
 * Oh, I have no doubt that UPE requires disclosure. I was moreso referring to COI that didn't involve payment. — Sirdog (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, my explanation above your question - In cases of biographies & BLP... has brought some clarity relative to COIs in general. I used "friend" in my example, but it applies to any close relationship, be it family, friend or foe. The correct procedure is to invite other editors to oversee the editing. If I haven't addressed your specific concern, don't hesitate to ask by pinging me in your question.  Atsme 💬 📧 10:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright refers to the owner of a creative work owning the exclusive right to copy and distribute said work. On Wikipedia, all edits are licensed under CC BY-SA and the GFDL, which is performed automatically after any edit is published per the relevant notice on the edit (or confirm edit) screen.
 * Copyright

Where things get complicated (to put it lightly) is when Wikipedia wishes to use the creative work of others for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. To do so the creative work must be within the public domain, the relevant copyright has to be explicitly disowned, the copyright has to be under a compatible license, or explicit permission from the owner of the copyright must be obtained. It is also possible to use such works without permission, but under very specific circumstances (such as fair use).

If copyrighted material is hosted on Wikipedia without permission or legal justification it constitutes a copyright violation, which is a big non-no for many reasons - not least of which is the legal liability for Wikipedia. It is imperative that such material be removed from Wikipedia immediately and in most cases it is appropriate for an administrator to perform revision deletion. While it is generally not easy to be blocked on Wikipedia, repeatedly posting copyrighted material is one such way.

To re-distribute text on Wikipedia it requires credit be given to the authors in one 3 ways: a link to the Wikipedia page, a link to a stable online copy which is freely accessible and gives credit to an equivalent degree as a history page, or a list of all authors is provided. When it comes to any amount of media, how to handle giving appropriate credit would be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the copyright of that media.

Linking to another website that possesses a copyrighted work does not constitute a copyright violation, however, websites that are violating copyright themselves should not be linked to as that also has similar legal liabilities. Wikipedians also need to take into account copyright law from nations that aren't the United States.
 * ✅ The following wikilinked discussions are for you to read because copyvio can be complicated, and when we're reviewing, being only human leaves us open to the occasional mistake as my own experiences demonstrate (and I am very well versed in copyvio, but not an attorney, although I used to keep one on retainer):
 * User talk:Justlettersandnumbers
 * User talk:Justlettersandnumbers
 * User talk:Justlettersandnumbers
 * Interesting reads! I expect copyvio to be one of my doozys, lol. — Sirdog (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This is fairly straightforward: a hoax is an attempt to deceive in audience into believing that something false is real. This has occasionally been done on Wikipedia, and gone undetected for years, as a means of demonstrating that Wikipedia is falsifiable. This is an inevitable consequence of Wikipedia being a website that anyone can edit and, as of today, it isn't something that can be prevented with certainty. There is no need to prove this, and it only leads to read world consequences - in extreme cases, it could be fatal. Editors - NPR's especially - need to be cognizant of if something is a hoax and, if it is believed or verified to be, to mark it as such and/or mark it for speedy deletion.
 * Hoaxes

The above said, there is a fundamental difference between an article written as a hoax and an article describing a hoax for encyclopedic value. The latter is acceptable; the former is not.
 * ✅ Nice!

Also pretty straightforward: an attack page is a page on Wikipedia, regardless of namespace, wherein it's sole purpose is to threaten, demean, or disparage the subject. Such pages are eligible for speedy deletion under G10 and should be marked as such if found, blanked as a courtesy, and offending editor(s) warned. If the subject is notable, and the page is in article space, then an editor should revert the page to the last neutral version. If such a version does not exist, the page should be deleted by an administrator outright, and a stub made to replace it. This is especially urgent if the subject is a BLP. In a situation where content from an article is split to a separate one for whatever reason, that page would generally not be classified as an attack page, even if a majority of the content reflects negatively upon the subject. All BLP requirements would still apply, though, if applicable.
 * Attack pages
 * ✅ (sidebar note: my grammar-spell checker underlines problems in red, and has consistently noted its being spelled it's - we all do it, and I just wanted to make you aware because of its consistency. If you notice similar in my texts, please don't hesitate to advise. SMirC-chuckle.svg)  Atsme  💬 📧 13:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will endeavor to work on it, thank you for pointing it out! I guess it's time to blow the dust off of Grammarly. — Sirdog (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've completed part 2! I hope all is well! 😁 — Sirdog (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - apologies for not getting to this sooner. RL got in the way, but promise to review it tomorrow. What I've scanned so far looks good, so go ahead and keep working.  Atsme  💬 📧 21:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Pt. 2  Atsme 💬 📧 13:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

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

It has been demonstrated that a majority of new content on the English Wikipedia is developed by new users. In contrast, there are a lot of policies surrounding content editing (from notability, to the manual of style, to picking reliable sources, and so on). Not to mention more universally applicable setbacks, such as computer literacy.
 * Discussions with creators of new pages

New page reviewers are in a unique position where they will communicate with such editors with high frequency. It's imperative for reviewers to be kind. If an article is good to go, they should send a message of support and thanks for the editor's time. If an article has issues, or necessitates deletion or removal from article space, the reviewer should go over the errors, give feedback on how to improve (usually in the form of directing them to the relevant policies), and above all else encourage them to continue.

A shining example of such behavior could be found in (within reason; his capacity for kindness and AGF is arguably inhuman, lol).
 * ✅ re: Oshwah - SMirC-chuckle.svg I agree wholeheartedly!!  Atsme 💬 📧


 * Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

Wikipedia is big. As time has gone on, and as the membership has waxed and waned, it was found to be beneficial to create templates for generic notifications of various things. The ones I am most familiar with are the vandalism warning templates used in WP:RCP (which I remember with fondness substituting by hand until I learned that Twinkle and RedWarn existed). Generally, they are useful for repetitious tasks or for tasks wherein policy mandates a notification (such as WP:ANI or making sure all leveled warnings are issued for WP:AIV).

However, in most cases - and especially in NPP - it is preferred to give non-templated responses when possible. New users aren't stupid; they can tell if a message is coming from someone trying to help or if it is a "corporatized" generic response. They will be far more likely to become inflamed, or simply leave outright, in the latter scenario. Such notifications can also be long-winded and intimidating (such as the copyright warnings).

Regular users are even less stupid, and it is against best practice to give them templates at all unless mandated by a process or policy.
 * ✅ I am quite impressed with your textual articulation, your critical thinking skills and evaluative approach to situations, and your overall knowledge and capacity to understand difficult situations and how best to handle them. IOW, you have all the ingredients that comprise an administrator cocktail.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words! It is my aspiration to be an administrator one day, so this means a lot! — Sirdog (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

When speaking with new users (or with anyone, really, as most article creators are probably invested in said article) it is important to speak in a friendly, welcoming tone so as to avoid coming off as WP:BITEy or impersonal, otherwise, the editor may be encouraged to abandon the article or the project. Information should be distilled clearly. It is trivially easy for an experienced Wikipedian to drown a newcomer is jargon, shortcuts, and complicated policies which can be extremely overwhelming. Using simple language in favor of complex language, when appropriate, to get across an idea is also ideal - not all editors are fluent or native in English, and these editors are not in any way less valid than others so long as there is not a competence issue. Being knowledgeable in the relevant policy and processes is paramount; misinterpretation or a complete lack of understanding can result in a waste of administrator time (e.g improper CSD), cause a negative experience for the creator that is unnecessary (e.g rejecting an article on false pretenses when in reality it is acceptable, or vice versa), waste community time (e.g improper AfD), among other poor results.
 * ✅ Well said!
 * Wikilove/positive comments

When communicating with other editors, and especially newcomers, it is very tempting to only focus on the bad. However, this can lead to the feeling that the only result of a conversation will be poor and that the positive contributions of an editor outside of whatever the current topic of the day is aren't relevant. This would be incorrect, as any constructive edit made to the encyclopedia is worthy of praise, because it is the work of the volunteers that have made Wikipedia what it is today. As such, it is important to find ways to compliment and thank fellow editors for their positive contributions from time to time, rather than just making corrections or criticisms. These go a long way towards creating a positive rapport, respect, and trust between editors.

WikiLove is an informal yet widely accepted community doctrine to aggressively be nice with one another and wholesomely thank other editors for a wide array of things. Not least of which being an editor's very existence on the project. This can be accomplished by a simple talk page message all the way to long lists of templates dedicated to this purpose.
 * ✅ Well stated. Oh, and checkout User:Atsme/Banners  Atsme  💬 📧 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Warning templates are a specific type of notification meant to advise an editor that a particular behavior is undesirable and that it needs to stop and/or be corrected. They are most commonly used in anti-vandalism to systematically warn vandalizers against their behavior. After a level 4 warning (or 4im) is issued and ignored, an administrator will block on sight or in response to a report to WP:AIV. That said, there are warning templates for an extremely wide-array of scenarios.
 * Warning templates

In the case of NPP, relevant warnings to issue may include (but aren't limited to): warning editors about copyvio, advising page creator that a page is up for CSD/PROD/XfD, warning editor for creating an attack page, warning an editor about a potential COI, warning an editor about UPE, advising editors tagging articles to avoid doing so when done improperly, warning editors about BLP violations, and so on. These warnings are important so that, in the event an administrator becomes involved, it can be demonstrated that an editor was advised to avoid X and continued to do so anyway. That said, issuing such warnings with templates is not wholly necessary (barring exemptions), and NPP's should evaluate what is most appropriate based on the circumstances.
 * Part 3 under my belt! — Sirdog (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I highly recommend the following two essays: Don't template the regulars and WP:Don't template anyone.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just realized I've been kinda cold about this without meaning to, but if anybody gets real life being a kicker, it would be me right now. My availability is quite high and I always have other hobbies and tasks I can do in the meantime, so the response time certainly isn't an inconvenience at all. I also see you are doing 3 students simultaneously?! I respect your tenacity in doing so! Me being able to knock this out so fast (hopefully that doesn't come back to bite me 😅) is due to us getting properly started right at the beginning of a "weekend" for me. I look forward to your feedback! — Sirdog (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pt. 3 – Feedback provided. I don't think you've been cold at all, and I do appreciate and enjoy reading your comments, as well as those by other trainees who are taking my course now or in the past. <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  💬 📧 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)
Articles for deletion is a venue where editors can formally discuss whether or not an article should remain on Wikipedia or if another course of action would be appropriate (e.g merging, redirecting, userfying, draftifying, etc). AfD, like most processes on Wikipedia, is not a vote. It is standard practice to preface a comment with Support or some other indicator of the desired result, but this should be followed with an argument. Arguments that discuss how an article meets or fails a particular policy take precedence over arguments that do not. AfDs discussions remain listed for 7 full days before being evaluated by an uninvolved administrator. Said administrator will evaluate the consensus reached and close the discussion with such evaluation being provided. Non-administrators may also do this, but it comes with various caveats.
 * Articles for Deletion
 * ✅ It is definitely a process...SMirC-mmm.svg <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 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * BEFORE nominating

WP:BEFORE is a section of the AfD policy which goes over various things editors should check for prior to submitting an article to AfD. These have been developed so as to minimize the number of articles submitted to AfD that are there improperly, or where the outcome is so glaringly obvious that the AfD process is not a productive use of editor time.

First, the editor should be informed regarding deletion policy so they know what the valid grounds for deletion are and what alternatives exist. They should then also inform themselves regarding the content policies that are primarily used in deletion debates: notability (both GNG and SNG), verifiability, reliable sourcing, and WP:NOT.

Second, the editor should perform a myriad of checks to ensure that AfD is necessary and not another process. Is CSD/PROD more appropriate? Has the article been nominated before and thus the concerns currently held have already been addressed? Is the article's current state due to vandalism/disruption which simple reversion will immediately correct? Has enough time passed for renomination (if applicable)? Etcetera, etcetera.

Third, the editor should entertain the idea of improving the article and salvaging it - if reasonable and applicable - rather than simply sending it to the chopping block. Or, if a fix is well supported by policy or is otherwise obvious, perhaps the editor can simply do so themselves per WP:BOLD rather than forcing a consensus be established (e.g if it is clear the topic itself isn't notable, merging it into another article may be a solution the editor takes unilaterally).

Finally, if the primary concern is sourcing, can the editor find that sourcing themselves? The minimum check expected prior to an AfD is a regular Google search, a Google books search, a Google news search, and a Google scholar search (if the topic relates to academia).
 * ✅ Also check out WP:TWL - a valuable resource for reviewers. <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 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion is a process editors can utilize to mark an article that they believe is not in compliance with a relevant policy, but also does not meet CSD criteria, for deletion. This is designed for articles where there is a low chance a consensus will be needed to ascertain what should happen to it; ergo, it won't be controversial.
 * PROD and BLPPROD

Once the template is placed, if any editor whatsoever objects (including the article creator), the process is aborted and may not be restarted. The reason for objection is immaterial, even if in bad faith, with 2 exceptions: a) the removal of the template (a typical sign of objection) is clearly not an attempt to object (e.g vandalism), or b) if the removal is performed by a banned user or a sockpuppet. If the editor that placed the PROD still believes deletion is warranted despite an objector's rationale, the process would need to escalate to AfD. If the PROD template remains on the page for 7 days uncontested an administrator will delete the page.

WP:BLPPROD is a process to delete an article about a living person that has no sources whatsoever in any form (e.g external links, inline citation, further reading, etc) that support any statement made within the article. This is not used for any other purpose; such as determining notability or correcting any violation of a WP:BLP guideline. In order for the tag to be removed, at least one reliable source must be added to support some statement made within the article. If the tag is removed with no sources added, it may be returned with the expiration date not being affected. If there is contention as to the reliability of a newly provided source, the article should be directed to AfD. If the nominator believes the article still warrants deletion for any other reason, then a relevant deletion process should be utilized.

The timeline to remove the tag is the same as PROD; after 7 days an administrator will delete the article if the requirements for the tag's removal are not met. In both processes, administrators are just like any other editor (this is always the case, but is sometimes forgettable). They may decide to object to a PROD or provide a source for BLPPROD rather than delete.
 * ✅ I've often wondered if we might not save time by simply tagging it as an AfD. Far too many admins are overly-cautious or hesitant to act on A7s and Gs. SMirC-what.svg <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 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If an article is PRODed and the 7 days expire, but an administrator has yet to perform deletion (this example presumes the PROD is procedurally sound), are objections made after the expiry still capable of halting deletion?
 * Yes, if the reason satisfies the issue that caused the 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 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I was studying the relevant page I learned that WP:PRODPATROL is a thing. An interesting maintenance task that I'm slightly interested in, but I digress. As I randomly checked an article in the category for proposed deletion I found Morgan Giraudet. I do believe that the PROD reason is justifiable, however, this appears to be a WP:BLP and there are no references. Checking the page history shows references used to exist, but I would evaluate all of them were not reliable. So, we have a page on PROD that may qualify for BLPPROD. What would be the correct procedure here? Replace the original PROD with BLPPROD? Add BLPPROD ontop of the originating PROD? Wait out the current PROD and, if it's objected, then issue BLPPROD? Some other action? Granted, I have not looked myself to see if notability establishing sources exist - this question is mostly procedural.
 * I added a comment on the PROD that there is a duplicate in Draft:Morgan_Giraudet - maybe that will speed things up, but then, refer to my tick comment 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  💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Soft deletion is a form of procedural deletion where anyone may request the page be undeleted indiscriminately at WP:REFUND. This is generally used when a deletion discussion has very little participation. The closing administrator is directed to make the fact the deletion is soft clear. A possible alternative to soft deletion is a blank and redirection if no one suggests that deletion is appropriate per established community consensus.
 * WP:Soft delete
 * ✅ Recommended reading: User_talk:Atsme, specifically the cited reference authored by one of our admins.
 * I see that WP:SOFTDELETE is underneath the section "No quorum" of the deletion procedures. In this section at the top it states If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD... Generally, this will result in soft deletion. In the section where the shortcut leads it only states If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. So, is the only qualifier for an administrator to perform soft-deletion that the participation be minimal? Or does a past PROD that was cancelled, or any editor opposing deletion, preclude that as an option?
 * It's anyone's guess. If it's not a blatantly obvious AfD, it's subjective which leaves us at the mercy of whatever admin is on duty. That is one of several reasons editors should closely scrutinize admin candidates at RfA. <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 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion refer to a very regimented set of criterion where administrators have consensus to bypass PROD or XfD and simply delete a page unilaterally. Out of all of the deletion processes, this is the fastest (relevant to how fast an administrator sees the CSD tag). The process is started by an editor wishing to delete something placing the relevant template on the page, along with notifying the page creator and any major contributors.
 * Speedy Deletion

There are criteria for general deletion (GX), which apply to all pages; article (AX), which only applies to articles; redirects (RX), which only apply to redirect pages; files (FX), which only apply to files; categories (CX), which only apply to categories; user pages (UX), which apply to user pages; and portals (PX), which apply to pages that act as a "main page" for a broad subjects. I know it was kinda redundant for me to list them out like this; I mainly did it to ingrain the categories internally.

I have bolded "very regimented" because it is an unfortunately common practice for editors, when evaluating to CSD something, to stretch the criterion when it otherwise does not apply. Some examples include:
 * 1) G1 - Patent nonsense means the article is truly not able to be parsed. If it is possible to ascertain any kind of meaning, even if the meaning is very clearly absurd, the fact meaning exists at all disqualifies G1.
 * 2) G4 - Any page deleted under PROD or CSD does not qualify for G4, hard stop. Only a consensus-based discussion that resulted in deletion, which is undeleted without relevant consensus or process, qualifies.
 * 3) G11 - This refers to pages that are unsalvageably promotional; not merely articles that have promotional language within them. Common signs G11 may apply include: usage of first person, contact information for various people, only has promotional language, and in really easy cases: the author explicitly states that no one else should edit it.
 * 4) G12 - This only applies if there is unequivocal copyright violations on the page, and no version of the page within page history is clean of copyvio, and it is not possible to remove the copyvio and have a salvageable article.
 * 5) A1 - "No context" means it isn't possible to ascertain what the topic of the article even is from the given material. If the topic is declared in the article, or it is possible to ascertain it based on the given information, A1 does not apply.
 * 6) A7 - This criterion refers to an article about a real person, individual animals, organizations, content on the web, or organized events wherein nothing in the article credibly indicates the subject is important or significant. Credible means that a claim as evaluated by a rational person may make sense intuitively; it does NOT mean that the claim meets the standards of WP:RS or WP:VERIFY. I've provided personally crafted examples below. For the purpose of demonstration, all sentences below are functionally the only sentence in a hypothetical article that made any claim of importance. In the wild, if any sentence in an article has a credible claim to significance - even if other claims aren't credible - A7 is still not applicable.
 * 7) John Doe is able to do the fastest push-ups on the planet - not eligible for A7
 * 8) Coca-Cola makes the best cookies in the United States - not eligible for A7
 * 9) John Doe was the first human being to visit Jupiter - eligible for A7
 * 10) Jane Doe successfully created a perpetual motion machine - eligible for A7
 * 11) 'The End of an Era', a book by Jane Doe in 2022, is the first book ever published - not eligible; books do not fall under A7
 * 12) A10 - This criterion only applies if all of the following are true: the article is an unequivocal duplicate of another article on the project; the duplicated version does not improve upon, expand upon, or add details that aren't present in the original; and the title of the article is not a good redirect target. The last point is really important, as deletion is obviously inappropriate if the article should remain so it can be a redirect.

The creator of a page is prohibited from removing a CSD template unless it falls under G6, G7, G8, G13, G14, or U1. They can instead contest the deletion on the article talk page which will be taken into account once an administrator reviews it. If an uninvolved editor removes the template, the deletion is classified as contested, and another deletion process should be selected (with potential common-sense exceptions being G9, G12, and U1).
 * ✅ Well done. <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 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Under criterion U5 it states where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, except for plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. Am I correct in assuming that even if a page's content falls under U5, if the owner has non-insubstantial edits outside of userspace, that U5 is not applicable?
 * The primary purpose of U5 is to discourage/eliminate non-notable autobiographies, improper use of UPs by advocacies, and the like. Editors who are here to help build the encyclopedia are given more leniency. For example, I've taken advantage of my user subpages to host NPP training, and my actual UP hosts some of my photographs, barnstars, userboxes, etc. but I'm obviously here to help build (and fix what's broke). What we don't want is for, say a photog, to use the space to showcase their work, and obviously fit the description of WP:NOTHERE. <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 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Part 4 completed! I've also made some replies from your feedback above. Could I point your attention to the question about COI when you get the time? Cheers! — Sirdog (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)
Wikipedia has a lot of templates. One kind of template are improvement tags. These can be assigned to an article to alert readers (and thus, editors) of various problems that may exist with the article. This can be about copy-editing, copyright violations (both real and suspected), plot summaries being too long, an article being written like an advertisement, and many more.
 * Improvement Tagging

There has been contention in the community as to whether or not these templates are useful, as it would be preferred if the editor WP:BOLDly corrected whatever the errors. However, the general consensus at present is that - presuming an editor has already decided to not fix the problem - it's better to tag it than do nothing. As editors are volunteers it is their free choice as to whether or not to fix a problem. It's also possible the problem requires knowledge or expertise, both in Wikipedia policy or topic knowledge, which the editor lacks (CCI is a common example of requiring basically both).

Any editor without a COI to the article may remove any tag if they cannot find the error that is described. However, unless it was a glaringly obvious tag (e.g lack of categorization), a talk page note is encouraged anytime that this is done.

It is possible to overtag an article, which is problematic within itself, as it may discourage editors or readers from doing anything. This is because it gives off the perception the article is irredeemable. At most only 3 tags should be on an article at once, and these should be reserved for the most severe problems, even if other problems exist. The less severe problems can come later; there isn't a deadline.

When tagging, the most specific tag should be selected for a given problem. The template is nice and all, but it is very vague and puts the onus on future editors to find errors when they have technically already been seen. Does the article need sections? Is the view not balanced? Are there not enough citations? Etcetera, etcetera.
 * ✅ You nailed 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 💬 📧 01:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Categorization is a function on Wikipedia wherein if readers know a defining characteristic of multiple topics and want to find related articles, they can. All articles on Wikipedia should have a minimum of a single category and this category should be the most specific branch of category available. For example, when categorizing Abraham Lincoln, using Category:19th-century American politicians is not as ideal as using Category:19th-century presidents of the United States (though in this case the actual article has both). Any category assigned to an article should be verifiable, remain neutral, and be a defining characteristic of the subject. For example, randomly categorizing someone with Category:Leaders of the Ku Klux Klan without reliable sources commonly associating the topic with such a category is defamatory.
 * Categorizing

Categorization is physically performed by adding   to the bottom of an article page, though nowadays, people mainly use HotCat.
 * ✅ Nice 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 💬 📧 01:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

A stub is classified as an article that has some useful information but lacks coverage expected from a typical encyclopedia. WikiProject Stub sorting is a project designed to organize stubs into specific stub-categories. This is done so as to increase the likelihood of editors finding stubs that may interest them and expanding upon them, rather than letting the article sit in the void and wither away. Many articles moved to mainspace by new users have a high probability of being stubs to start off with, and so NPR's are in a particularly good position to perform this function; knocking out 2 birds with 1 stone.
 * Stub


 * Q:, what would you do with a 2 sentence "stub"? <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 💬 📧 01:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A: Hmm. Kneejerk reaction would be to perform a variety of checks (e.g violation of WP:NOT, was the page blanked in vandalism, was the page recently deleted and being undeleted out of process, has the article had enough time to breath yet, does criterion A1/A3 apply, etc). Presuming none of those checks bore fruit, I guess it would depend if the page creator managed to provide 2 or more GNG/SNG compliant sources to prove the topic's notability. Specifically, to the point where merging the 2 sentences into a more relevant article wouldn't be appropriate. If they managed it, try to find both a regular and stub category to match it, encourage creator to keep going (and perhaps even try to expand it a bit myself), then mark patrolled. If not, perform a courtesy check using the various Google engines to see if I can get any - if I can't, attempt a merge/redirect or AfD/PROD.
 * ✅ It's probably subjective, but I would be inclined to draftify, and let the article creator find the citations and expand the article they created, or ask for help if they don't know how. We can notify them of what needs to be done on their TP after sending the article to draft. As an NPP reviewer, you would have that right, but make sure you have sufficient justification to do so. From my perspective, a 2-sentence stub doesn't even qualify as a stub - it's barely a definition.  Also, how many sources can you cite to 2 sentences in order to pass GNG requirements? (rhetorical questions) <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  💬 📧 00:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Separately from my answer, I just want to in advance ask for 2 or 3 rounds of articles to review instead of one, if that's alright. I'm a learning by doing kind of person, so being able to get your 1-on-1 evaluation of 10-15 reviews would be very helpful! — Sirdog (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , your wish for additional rounds is granted, and we can start with the first 5 reviews tomorrow. <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 💬 📧 00:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I just realized I forgot to ping! oops — Sirdog (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , part 5 is in the bag! — Sirdog (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Pt. 5 - Go ahead and answer the stub question above. I will provide the articles for you to review tomorrow AM. <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 💬 📧 01:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise
I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. Feel free to copy edit and/or find & cite sources if needed.

1. Amanda Cortinas

State of Article at Review:
 * 1) Article is in English.
 * G1, G2, G3, G10, and G11 do not apply.
 * 1) Article is not nearly blank.
 * 2) I can tell what the topic is.
 * 3) Earwig detects potential copyvio from 2nd line of article at source A and B. However, our article was created with the text in 2008 whereas source A was made in 2015. I can't tell when source B was created, so while it is possible Wikipedia took it from there, the odds are low enough to where I would not tag for copyvio or rev-del.
 * 4) Claim of importance is that they are an actor.
 * 5) Subject is BLP.
 * 6) Absolutely nothing comes up when searching for BLP's name aside from a source that does not demonstrate significant coverage (also probably not reliable, but I didn't bother to dig to much deeper after diqualifying sigcov).
 * 7) Subject does not meet WP:NACTOR.
 * 8) A PROD was already attempted and contested, thus, AfD would be appropriate.
 * 9) As AfD already exists, I would vote Delete. The article One Life to Live doesn't really mention character's by name unless to talk about the show in a meta way, with Amanda nor Adriana mentioned once throughout. Nothing in the article up for deletion gives reason to assume there is sufficient significance with the character to warrant a merge. My original vote would have been Redirect since One Life to Live exists, but I would switch over to Delete based on your presented rationale.
 * 10) I would mark article patrolled per flowchart and discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers.
 * ✅ Very well done, Sirdog! <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 💬 📧 00:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

2. Emma Bolger

State of Article at Review:


 * 1) Article is in English.
 * G1, G2, G3, G10, and G11 do not apply.
 * 1) Article is not nearly blank.
 * 2) I can tell what the topic is.
 * 3) Earwig detects little chance of copyvio. Portion of sentence taken from  but is immediately linked to in same sentence, so seems okay.
 * 4) There are a couple of sources that seem to meet GNG, though not very many. She meets WP:NACTOR by the skin of her teeth with major roles in 2 films deemed notable enough for their own articles, so I'd say actress deserves inclusion.
 * 5) Title of article is very clearly appropriate as it's named after the actor, per WP:COMMONNAME.
 * 6) Has categories.
 * 7) Article has exceeded stub status, so stub categories unnecessary.
 * 8) I don't believe article has any glaring issues wherein NPR needs to add a tag.
 * 9) Wikiprojects already assigned.
 * 10) Mark reviewed.
 * ✅ Very thorough – 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 💬 📧 00:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

3. Hemu's Samadhi Sthal

State of Article at Review:

This review was not straightforward for me. My first option was going to be review as accepted, but decided it against it based on WP:INHERITED and lack of coverage aside from tourism.


 * 1) Article is in English.
 * G1, G2, G3, G10, and G11 do not apply.
 * 1) Article is not nearly blank.
 * 2) I can tell what the topic is.
 * 3) No copyvios visible.
 * 4) I can't evaluate an overwhelming number of the sources on this page, though considering most of them are tied to the history section and just re-hash a lot of Hemu, I'd surmise they aren't WP:GNG compliant.
 * 5) The claim to significance is that a Hindu king died there.
 * 6) Not a BLP.
 * 7) Using news, books, or scholar does not bring up anything useable.
 * 8) In my view does not meet WP:NGEO. Not recognized by India as protected (that I can find) and the location itself has not received significant coverage in sources.
 * 9) I do not believe notability is borderline, as while this article has lots of books listed I would surmise all of them are talking about the king and not the site in particular.
 * 10) Despite chart advising a PROD or AfD, I see an administrator redirected the article in April 2021 which a relatively new user undid about a month ago. I would restore the redirect. If this was reverted again by the same editor, I would then take article to AfD (as obviously a PROD will be contested).
 * 11) Mark reviewed but watchlist article to see if redirect is undone.
 * ✅ It's borderline, so I can't fault your decision, but I would favor inclusion over deletion or redirect. Why? Because the redirect will likely be removed as the monument does have verifiable historic significance. It is a highly publicized tourist attraction shown in travel pamphlets, and online sites, etc. My guess is that there are also existing books published in other languages that may provide more details about its construction/architecture, and the followers who built it. One example of an online site is Study Today. There's also the haryanatourism gov site which states: Hem Chandra’s supporters raised a ‘Chattri’, also called a shelter for travellers, at the place of beheading. Haryana Govt. plans to construct a memorial at the present site. Then we see it's on the government's list: Section 1.6.3 BUILDINGS OR MONUMENTS OF HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICAL / RELIGIOUS IMPORTANCE, and  Action Plan - CPCB pass for historical monuments . <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  💬 📧 02:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

4. Dave Rosser

State of Article at Review:

This review was not straightforward for me. My first option was going to be review as accepted, but decided it against it based on WP:1E.


 * 1) Article is in English.
 * G1, G2, G3, G10, and G11 do not apply.
 * 1) Article is not nearly blank.
 * 2) I can tell what the topic is.
 * 3) Earwig got upset, but it's because other sources took from Wikipedia and not vice versa.
 * So, this is a bit of a weird one. Every single source is simply reporting on his death, though they do go over some things Dave did that could be interpreted as notable, but those "notable" events do not possess significant coverage. The significant coverage is that he died. Googling Dave is either Wikipedia and every single other article is simply reporting on his death. I think this would fall under WP:1E, and thus deny this individual notability. Being generally famous as a musician for the The Afghan Whigs and his role in other bands (which were started by the same group of individuals) is not synonymous with notability.
 * 1) Credible claim of significance is being a musician within a relatively famous band.
 * 2) Not BLP.
 * 3) As mentioned above, searching just overwhelmingly fills my browser with reports of his passing.
 * 4) I think the only relevant criterion for SNG WP:SINGER would be 6, but the circular warning of that criterion may apply here due to the group of musicians Dave was around. All of the other bands he played in had the same people, generally. One of the sources in the article talks about him being featured in David Lettermen or Jimmy Kimmel live, which might have satisfied criterion 12, but I could not find other sources to corroborate him being the "featured subject." So, TL;DR, no SNG applies.
 * 5) Chart advises PROD or AfD; would instead redirect to The Afghan Whigs per.
 * 6) Mark reviewed but watchlist article to see if redirect is undone.
 * ✅ – trust your gut – your first instincts were correct in my view because he has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable," if not only because of the significant coverage he received in death. I doubt a redirect will survive. The material in the obits published by multiple RS, include Variety, Billboard, Rolling Stone, NPR, LA Times, etc. is indeed widespread independent coverage about him in RS. See the "in a nutshell" banner at the top of this page. Another thought, the album Do to the Beast was a first by the band in 16 years, which is also notable as a "first", and his performance in is also notable. <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  💬 📧 10:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

5. WWE Hall of Fame (2023)

'''Article was redirected at time of review. Moved back to first revision prior to this, being'''.
 * 1) Article is in English.
 * G1, G2, G3, G10, and G11 do not apply.
 * 1) Article is not nearly blank.
 * 2) I can tell what the topic is.
 * 3) Earwig is happy.
 * 4) There are no sources or references at all.
 * 5) Okay, so given the unique nature of this, I will boldly deviate here. Having an article for each WWE Hall of Fame year seems to be a precedent that is set by going to the main WWE Hall of Fame article. It is also clear browsing previous articles going over the specific years that it happens at around mid to late March to early April in the year it's named after. Therefore, we are a year away from the 2023 version of this. It appears to simply have been created in advance as a redirect which an IP and now a new user are continuously undoing to add unsourced information. So, presuming this wasn't already corrected by  and, I would have performed the redirect and then mark reviewed. In regards to the redirect's validity, I cannot find anything in WP:R that implies it should be deleted, and I think from an intuitive standpoint it makes sense to reserve and redirect the immediate following Hall of Fame as people may begin to search for it.
 * 6) So ultimately, mark reviewed but watchlist article to see if redirect is undone.
 * ✅ Another on-purpose toughie. My responses are designed primarily to encourage critical thinking and offer other angles that may not have been considered, such as NOTCRYSTALBALL and V. My thoughts about this article: until the basic criteria for GNG is met, it should either be draftified, redirected (which was done), or CSD if the redirects don't work since it is unsourced and the material is unverifiable in the article's current state. <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  💬 📧 10:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, - here's your first 5. Happy reviewing!! Oh, and don't hesitate to boldly edit if you've the mind to do so. <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 💬 📧 14:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, reviews are complete! This is where I knew I would begin to stumble, so I look forward to your feedback! I'm getting the unconscious feeling that I'm choosing redirect when the flowchart keeps saying to PROD or AfD, but if there is another article that is more general but the subject is clearly related, wouldn't it be preferable 9 times out of 10 to redirect rather than delete (aside from circumstances where redirecting keeps getting undone, in which case AfD would decide it's fate)? — Sirdog (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * – The majority of articles I chose for you were toughies, and your choices have all been good ones. Your work throughout this course is commendable. You are clearly investing critical thought and doing your homework. I hope that never changes. Re: your last question, see my comments following each review, and if you still have questions, don't hesitate to ask. I will provide 5 more reviews for you below per your request, but as of this writing, you have passed this course. CONGRATULATIONS! 10:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional 5 exercises
This go-round, please go ahead and take the appropriate action for each article, and provide an explanation.

6. System of parameters

I think you are really making me earn this green tick mark, and I both love and loathe you for it. What an evil article to place on my evaluations. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

So, in all honesty - for me - this article is unreviewable. The knowledge is so above my paygrade that I cannot answer most of the questions on the chart. I can't attempt to find my own references because, while I do get hits for Systems of parameters on Google Scholar and such, the phrasing is so general that I can't tell if a source I'm finding is about this system of parameters or perhaps another kind of system of parameters in another part of mathematics. SNG WP:NMATH doesn't help me as it focuses on numbers; not groups of parameters. As a point of humor, I see that reviewer has also pseudo given up - the page is apparently unpatrolled, but they used the page curation tool to mark it as unreferenced.

That said, I had an epiphany about an hour or so into this review to check the page history to see if it's ever had references. Lo and behold, I find. I can't evaluate the source, however it was added by a currently active editor with a Ph.D in mathematics. Odds are, the reference is appropriate. Is it notability establishing? I've absolutely zero clue. But, it does get the article a reference.

Official Answer: I've restored the reference to the article and adjusted the tag to say that more references could be added. Were I to have the NPR right, I would mark patrolled at this time, repeating basically the same chain of events from 2011. Looking at a couple of other mathematics related articles they also appear to be light on citations. The article has already been linked to WikiProject Mathematics and - considering the article's revivor,, is a very experienced editor (e.g mostly mainspace contributions, 25K edits, mathematics professional, no blocks, good AfD stats, has been drug to WP:ANI but appears to have been in the right, etc) - I do not believe I am doing the encyclopedia harm by allowing it to remain under their stewardship.

I totally get if this answer is completely inappropriate, in which case I'll just take the loss, but I simply would not go for any kind of deletion; at worst, I'd draftify. PROD would obviously get contested; no CSD criterion apply (or any that could apply I cannot do with certainty, for example, I've no clue whatsoever if this article is making a claim of significance - nor do I believe any administrator regularly patrolling would be comfortable touching it with a 10 foot pole); and I would be deeply uncomfortable going to AfD, as I cannot perform a WP:BEFORE.


 * ✅ SMirC-chuckle.svg I fixed the Ref section, added a lecture .pdf that supports the algebra, and marked it reviewed. <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 💬 📧 14:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

7. Dimitris Patmanidis

So, this is actually a fairly straight forward review, don't need to think about it much. A much welcome change of pace from the above article, to be sure. It appears an IP editor decided to just undo a redirect with information that appears to be accurate, but is held in the article OAED Vocational College shooting. So, I've simply reverted the IP editor. Presuming the page need a patrolling, if I had the rights, I would do so. Easy, peasy.

While it is possible (but improbable) that Dimitris could be notable enough for their own article, at that point I would just be writing the article myself, which would be outside the scope of NPR.
 * ✅ I felt guilty about #6 <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 💬 📧 14:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

8. Leah Felder

Most all searches for Leah online are talking about her divorce from (or marriage to) Brandon Jenner, who is in the Jenner family. Unlike Dave Ross, which I can understand the notability there, these sources don't mention things that she has done specifically whilst talking about these events. Most everything that may establish notability is purely on the basis that she was with Brandon or in the band Brandon & Leah. While the band Brandon & Leah meets notability, Leah herself as a musician or as a person is not notable. She wouldn't meet any criterion under WP:NSINGER; the closest would be criterion 6, as last time, but she's only been in 1 band. All other criterion would apply to the band, but not her (e.g billboard charts, creating music for a television show, appearing as a guest on a television show, etc).

My official answer is I've restored the redirect to Brandon & Leah which was undone a couple of days back.
 * ✅ Well done!

9. Hrvatin Stjepanić

So, this is a borderline case (atleast to me). On one hand, WP:ANYBIO states that if a person has received a well-known and significant award or honor that could establish notability. I'd classify being the vassal of the ruler of Bosnia to meet that. There is also widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, and his family that he started is certainly recorded extensively in the historical record. On the other hand, even per the article, his namesake is that his family - specifically, children - were extremely prominent in Bosnia. But aside from his vassalization, there isn't much more going for him specifically. All searches I perform show insignificant coverage or evaluations of the guy's sons.

In this case, I would favor inclusion. There could be resources that I cannot evaluate that show more notability, which would make sense considering this person's position, and I'm comfortable with ANYBIO getting 2 out of 3 criterion met. I've tagged for a request of more citations, and I'd mark patrolled.
 * ✅ There is a long list of scholarly/historic sources that I placed in the section References, and preceded it with a section for general sources. Without access to those books, we can only AGF that the refs & sources support the article. Another option would be to seek input from an editor who is versed in that history, or who might have access to those book pages. I would typically check TWL and might post something on the UTP of  because the page numbers are referenced as they should be. <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  💬 📧 00:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

10. Three Days (Pat Green song)

Earwig screamed about a potential copyright violation with basically the entirety of the existing prose, the violation originating at. Our article was created on day 1 with that exact line of text in 2016. The website according to https://carbondate.cs.odu.edu/#https://www.lyrics.com/ was made in 1996. I am physically incapable of determing when the specific lyrics page was made (and it wasn't a lack of trying; I used the carbon date website, I tried searching the source code of the website, I tried running a year search in Google - the works). All rights on this website are reserved.

about 45 minutes later

I actually went to the CCI section of the Wikimedia Community Discord and ask for a 2nd opinion. responded and said that lyrics.com is notorious from pulling Wikipedia text to it's website, and that it apparently used to have some kind of "More info" button that would declare this, but it appears to be absent. So, in any case, I don't believe a legitimate copyright violation is present.

In my view this song is a violation of WP:NSONG, specifically (bold added by me):


 * Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)
 * Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

This song has only been charted once, and fair enough the charting seems to be a good one, but it's a single charting. A cursory Google search (which is already impossible for a term known as "Three Days") doesn't pull anything else up. This will most likely permanently be a stub. came to the same conclusion, and so redirected it, but reverted the redirect stating Charted. Deserves a discussion before redirecting. This exact same chain of events happened with Carry On (Pat Green song), Three Days (Pat Green song), Wave on Wave (song), Guy Like Me, and Don't Break My Heart Again (Pat Green song) it appears TenPoundHammer is currently at ANI regarding deletions, so I suppose doing so may be appropriate, but I digress, the appropriateness of it is outside the scope of the review.

I've started a discussion on the talk page. It may have been more expedient to simply nominate for AfD, but if Donaldd23 perhaps simply forgot a policy or is otherwise neutral and concurs with my and Hammer's assessment (or demonstrates notability), I think that would generally be preferable. If there isn't a response in a reasonable time period, I'll then take to AfD.
 * ✅ I think under the circumstances, standing down & watching to see what happens is a smart move on your part. In cases like this, being right doesn't matter; therefore, it is always best to let consensus decide, and I agree that AfD is the best option in lieu of confronting Yosemite Sam types that may lead to a showdown (a name I borrowed from another trainee). <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  💬 📧 00:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , reviews are completed! I thank you for responding so fast to 5 and 6, and thank you very much for the course! I'm happy to have passed, and look forward to working as a NPR (should an administrator grant me the permission). I definitely learned a lot in the last week or so! — Sirdog (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the additonal reviews. You are quite welcome, Sirdog - it was my pleasure to work with you. If you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. <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 💬 📧 00:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Ok, - I've added 5 more exercises for you, only this time go ahead and follow through with an appropriate action for each article, and provide an explanation for each in the reviews 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 💬 📧 10:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation
passed the course, and did quite well on the reviews. He has all the makings of being a top notch NPP reviewer.

CONGRATULATIONS, Sirdog!!🥂🎉 🙌🏻 The evaluation is complete, and you may apply for NPP user rights at Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. Be sure to add a link to this review. You can also request NPP user rights directly from one of the participating administrators. <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, 1 June 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:BusterD
<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 and Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA."

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

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

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

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! <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 💬 📧 09:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

 * Notability

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia encompassing all essential subjects useful and necessary for humans to preserve for the benefit of humankind. Because the pedia is created and maintained by human beings over time, imperfection and incompletion may remain. The policies of notability and verifiability help protect pedia readers from incorrect, misleading and incomplete information.

Notability is a primary guiding policy which helps wikipedians determine appropriate choices for article creation and retention. A notable subject is one deemed worthy of an article in a comprehensive encyclopedia of subjects current, ancient, pre-historical, and everywhen between, determined by guideline, policy and sourcing. New article insertions by less experienced editors are guided by Articles for Creation and New Page Patrol processes. More experienced editors may apply for autopatrolled permission, based on prior Wikipedia contributions and good judgement, which presumes the editor's contribution in good faith, even when the new page itself may be incomplete or otherwise lacking. When we disagree about notability, we examine the article in various deletion-related discussions. Egregious violations of notability may be quickly deleted by administrators under various preset criteria classifications.

General Notability Guideline refers to a standard for pagespace inclusion on Wikipedia. An article which meets the GNG is one which is anchored with significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. This guideline normally refers to sources and citation already extant, but may sometimes allow the presumption of sources known or shown to have existed and not yet applied to the page. The GNG is a helpful benchmark which applies across all content areas. Articles which meet this guideline are almost always "kept" in deletion discussions, though the evaluation of the quality of sources may prove contentious in some discussions.
 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)

I believe these were formerly called secondary guidelines; Specific Notability Guidelines refer to standards for inclusion in discrete and diverse content areas. While such standards always refer back to the GNG (the page possessing adequate significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject), SNGs may at some times presume the availability of reliable sources given the subject's notability, acting in an inclusive manner. An American professional football player may be deemed to be presumed notable if they have played in one professional contest. In some cases, SNGs may prescribe a certain quality of sourcing required, for example biographies of living subjects or medical topics where weak sources may cause inadvertent harm to anyone, the guideline serving an exclusionary purpose. An article on Covid-19 requires WP:MEDRS-level sourcing, requiring high-level medical-quality citation and proscribing popular culture and most journalism from useful sources included.
 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

In my opinion, the decision of the WikiProject Military History, the largest most active WikiProject, to deprecate WP:SOLDIER signaled the decline of the specific notability guidelines' importance, as it regards presumed inclusion. That discussion concluded, based on experience with tens of thousands of deletion discussions, that while the SNG helped a nascent Wikipedia quickly appreciate the presumed notability of a vast number of possible subject candidates, as the pedia matured, notability on articles on project-related subjects were better judged by found sources, not by somewhat arbitrary and arguable standards for inclusion based on rank, awards, size of command and other more subjective measurements.
 * ✅ I think it's important for reviewers to be flexible, and not be overly committed to the rules like an algorithm following commands. Experienced reviewers who are good at their job can sense when a subject is "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", and more times than not, a fair number of sources can be found. The subject may not have multiple sources readily available to provide evidence of notability, but verifiability is equally as important, and if we can find a few quality sources to satisfy V, the article will likely survive AfD. We see that a lot with women on a global scale, both modern and historic. That's why it's important for reviewers to keep the bar of notability in perspective – everything is relative – therefore, we should review each article based on its own merits. <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 💬 📧 01:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest

Some SNGs might tend to protect Wikipedia from connected insertion and undue influence. WP:NEVENT protects the encyclopedia from everyday events often sourced with routine news or a lack of perspective. All events seem notable in the moment, but relying on today's sources is a poor way to accurately judge the longterm significance of today's events. WP:ORG helps wikipedians to decide whether business large or small qualify for pagespace on Wikipedia. An article on a multi-billion dollar company may only possess sources which come from news releases, the business section of the newspaper, or business-service websites (what might be considered routine news). In many cases a company or organization article may have been created or significantly affected by a connected, conflicted or undeclared paid editor. The SNG may help sort wheat from chaff. A single World Cup game, a sporting event with hundreds of millions of watchers and thousands of reliable sources, may not be determined to deserve its own article, per WP:Routine coverage, but instead be subsumed into the greater 2022 FIFA World Cup article.
 * ✅ Well stated!!!


 * Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
 * 1) Is this article harming anyone or Wikipedia itself?
 * 2) Would I consider this article worthy of inclusion based on GNG or SNG, if applicable?
 * 3) Can this article be considered verifiable as accurate or is it misleading or hoax-like?
 * 4) Being misleading or hoax-like being a somewhat subjective standard, how do I know what the article claims as true?
 * ✅ Very good points. You may also find the Curation Tool to be a big help while reviewing. It tells you if there is a suspected copyvio, which is the first thing I look for because nothing else matters if there's an infringement – it has to be fixed ASAP. The tool also gives you article history – it's actually quite handy.


 * Part 1 - <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 💬 📧 01:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)
Looking from a purely social view, Wikipedia is a collaboration of effort from a constantly fluctuating body of volunteers. A few joined us just today, some left forever this morning. Nobody except WMF representatives and UPEs (see below) are paid to be here. I am here editing this page because I want to be here. I choose to be here, typing these very words. Acting from willingness is a truly empowering experience, similar and perhaps related to the "self-actualized" level of Maslow's hierarchy. Issues which arise that tend to reduce editor willingness are important for the community (and the foundation) to address.
 * Assume good faith

An underlying context for my willingness is a recognition that my efforts are going to be taken in good faith by all others making similar efforts. My co-volunteers benefit by my assuming good faith in their actions. Learning to feel the warm embrace of good faith has been a healing and validating experience for me. Fifteen years ago I answered a few questions from a freelance journalist about the powerful transformative influence which following and embracing AGF has had on my entire life.

On the merits, Assuming Good Faith is a behavioral guideline, the heart of our community's civility policy. It is certainly wiser longterm to assume mere incompetence or honest disagreement than ascribing malicious intent. Interpreting intent is never a great starting place for free exchange of ideas, and if written in talk-space or edit summary may actually cause the writer to be admonished, blocked or banned. When I see behavior which I may well characterize as bad behavior, assuming good faith gives me a superior platform for discussion. We may be shown we merely misread or didn't understand the context of disagreement. We may find our original position was itself in error. We may discover either position might shift based on issues presented during good faith discussion. On the other hand, in a comparatively rare situation we may find prohibited behavior, socking, COI, gaming the system. Because we have done our best to eliminate alternative solutions, the community can feel fully justified when confronted with actual bad behavior to stomp that shit out. (apologies for BOLD use of irregular language here)
 * ✅ – excellent! <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 💬 📧 06:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Once upon a time, Wikipedia was the wild, wild west. Note, in many ways this is a comparatively recent time. I could write an article about Plumber butt and it would stay up for many months before somebody redirected it. This was true across all content areas (although the previous anecdote was totally false). And then we promoted lots of folks to admin but we still had serious issues. In 2005 John Seigenthaler had an article written about him and it contained demonstrably false information on his page. The defamatory info stayed there for four months before it was changed, and the change edit itself was reverted as an actual copyright violation. The backlash from this very public incident (and others like it) shamed our community into moving the whole pile forward, creating new criteria for required sourcing on all pages, but most specifically Biographies of Living (and recently deceased) People. The BLP movement was a community admission that wikipedians tended to act in a quite inclusionary way, at the time being seen as seeming to prefer quantity over quality. As someone wiser than I has said, "The key turning point was the increase in emphasis on WP:VERIFY."
 * Biographies of living people

In its current incarnation, BLP is a policy which protects a subset of topics, who are people who may suffer personal harm or cost because VERIFY, NPOV, and OR were not sufficiently honored. BLP is unusual in that it urges all those who see something not only to say something but provides them agency to do something, that is, boldly remove any contentious material not supported by RS, sorting out re-insertion later. "First, do no harm" has become an important behavioral guide for me, as a result of seeing other similar discussions in various content realms.

On re-reading, it occurred to me that I should note BLP policy is applied over ALL pagespace types, including talk pages and WP processes. Just because the article is about an organization, for example, doesn't eliminate the need to pay close attention to what the article says about living persons connected with the organization. In deletion procedures, we must continue to protect living subjects in process discussions. The need to avoid harm to living people is essential to the pedia's continued function. Wikipedia may fail occasionally to adequately cover recent and unrecognized subjects; however unfortunate such inadequacies may prove to be, a public view that Wikipedia is a platform for hate (or even unbalance) would doom the entire project.
 * ✅ Well done. BTW, there's also WP:GUILT which is not included in our BLP policy; rather, it was an agreed upon principal in a final decision by ArbCom. <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 💬 📧 06:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Every new editor comes into the pedia with an interest in some subject matter; if they were uninterested they wouldn't have edited or logged in at all. When a contributor's personal interest comes into conflict with the good of Wikipedia, we all must choose a balanced approach. Part of balance is declaring the interest at the outset of disagreement. An aide to a politician with an existing article cannot be a fair judge of what is and isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia article about the politician. They can however be extremely helpful by declaring their interest and then using their expert knowledge of extant sources, providing at least on one side of the story we do have RS which improves the page. The owner of a business or their representative is hardly in a position of neutrality, but may be an excellent resource about the sources available about the business, and may be relied on IF they openly declare their interest and otherwise operate under COI guidance.
 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)

Paid editors may be useful contributors, when they announce paid and connected status then follow the behavioral guidelines regarding such contributions. Especially these days when many of the most obvious encyclopedic articles have already been commenced, expert knowledge of existing sources by connected editors should be welcomed, so long as the relevant guidelines are followed.

When connected and paid contributors do not obey the COI and PE policies, we all have the same problem. Historically many such contributors are inexperienced wikipedians and make obvious tells which signal involvement. Some connected contributors have carefully crafted a number of sleeper accounts which are kept available in case the used accounts are discovered and blocked. I myself served as mentor to a paid editor User:CorporateM (a declared public relations professional) for a number of years, and he's a much better editor than I. By my observation, CM kept all the promises he made me during our mentorship, always announcing his connection and making quite excellent talk page edit requests which endeared him even to many opponents of PE. I'm extremely proud of him and he is a wikifriend who was always striving to do the right thing, according to the public relations professional code of ethics. Gradually the PE rules grew so restrictive and the passion against PE grew so intense (and almost irrational) he was unable to continue his effort.

Why did I help this fellow? He was trying to do the right thing. I figured if we could make it work, we might make it work for others. He and I met during the aborted WP:WikiProject Cooperation, an attempt to find a way to integrate declared paid editors into pagespace work. I'm not so worried about those guys, though they ARE a threat to Wikipedia.

I'm far more concerned about sophisticated and experienced UPEs who represent political organizations, think tanks, intelligence agencies and consulting companies who've been able to completely conceal their long-term work against a backdrop of normal editing. I suspect some became admins back in the heyday and remain active now. I have zero proof of any such involvement, but I'm not a complete idiot. Any dedicated agent of such orgs could easily just edit away from their interest over time and present an honest front. It would just take time, and the cool kids from St. Petersburg and Langley have lots of that.

Sorry for the rant.
 * ✅ – to summarize (a) "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile", (b) "one bad apple...", and (c) "there's no lid for that can of worms." <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 💬 📧 06:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

IMHO for the purpose of New Page Patrol the title for this particular section might better link to Copyright violations. The linked copyright article refers to Wikipedia's place in global copyright law, en.wikipedia being a "copyleft" source material. In the U.S. text material taken from Wikipedia and used elsewhere normally carries a Creative Commons license allowing free re-use and encouraging attribution. This mean wikipedians have a responsibility to verify the content we present under the CC actually belongs to us. On Wikipedia plagiarism with no attribution and clear copyvios can be immediately deleted, even when that means completely "stubifying" or even speedily deleting the page. I'll confess this is an area on Wikipedia with which I do not have a ton of experience, my work on 19th century biography largely immune from blatant copyvios, though I occasionally see articles in which text has been freely used from another (often U.S. government source).
 * Copyright

Images are quite another matter. Images which are uploaded or moved to Wiki Commons are normally those available for free use, under CC licenses or in the public domain. Images on available only on an individual language wikipedia may not have free use or CC licenses, especially in regard to images uploaded under fair use claims. Fair use images are allowed sometimes in limited ways (reduced resolution, reduced size) but discouraged. I myself have used a few screen capture images found on various websites as fair use to illustrate articles about deceased subjects. I only did so when I was unable to find any other way of depicting a subject no longer able to be imaged.

I have not worked too much in the copyright-specific boards or talk pages. This is an area in which I could use improvement and study. When I perform DYK reviews I utilize Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and I can see the value of using tools like this to better use my time on such tasks.

I would interested in hearing comments from you here helping me prioritize how to process NPP using this vital and essential policy.


 * ✅ – articles in the NPP queue and our curation tool both indicate which articles have potential copyvio issues. The curation tool also provides other possible issues, article history, & creation info. If a copyvio is indicated, or we suspect one, we deploy Earwig to determine the problem areas. If there is non-infringing text we believe is worth saving, we remove the infringing text, and tag with . If not salvageable, we CSD G12 it. I just added the FlowChart for your perusal. The reason I linked to WP:Copyrights is that I want my students to have a better understanding of copyrights and legal considerations in general. It also explains WP:LINKVIO, and includes a Copyright violation section that links to the other copyvio article via see also. It also explains in short order what steps to take in the event of a suspected copyvio. I believe it provides a good introduction to copyrights, and leads to a better understanding of what constitutes a copyvio which further helps our reviewers when explaining any action they may have taken to resolve an issue. <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  💬 📧 06:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hoaxes are articles which are false but created in order to perpetuate the falsehood; these are much harder to perpetrate these days than in the days of the wild, wild west. This is largely because of the effectiveness of volunteers and admins who have built working New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation systems. Autopatrol-permitted editors are unlikely to make such hoax pages and other page creators must deal with these two systems designed to screen for this exact issue. I'm sure New Page patrollers are likely to see attempted hoaxes. If I were reviewing, I would follow sourcing to meet WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY. I'm not a pop culture guy so some things I think might see as hoaxy may turn out to be verifiable.
 * Hoaxes
 * ✅ I have come across a few imposters, mostly teenagers posing as wealthy businessmen. They can be quite convincing. <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 💬 📧 06:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Especially in the realm of BLPs and ORGs, contributors may create pages or page sections which may devote themselves to injuring or discrediting their subjects. This sort of material may be obvious or it may be better hidden. I had an experience during DYK reviewing which I took to a trusted admin for advice. I was at the time totally focussed on the reliability of the sources, but the admin pointed out that each data point presented by sources gave the appearance of negative activity. When I confronted the DYK nominator saying I wanted to take the sources to RS/N within minutes they withdrew the nom. An old BLP page in which I was involved Vicki Iseman has recently seen new activity. Iseman is a DC lobbyist about whom in 2008 both the NYTimes and the WashPost connected to the late Senator John McCain, the Times in a slightly more lurid manner. Iseman sued the Times but the case was quietly settled for no money. Last weekend a former McCain aide admitted covering up an affair between the lobbyist and the Senator, something the Times only previously implied. I raise this experience because the John McCain lobbyist controversy was an article created directly by removal of all controversial detail from the BLP page. When both pages faced 2008-09 deletion processes both were kept, the BLP article "delete" outcome overturned by a still current admin who decided the best arguments came from a subset of !voters who claimed the BLP was entirely positive since all the negative material had been removed to the event page. The admin concluded deleting the BLP would have the effect of removing the balancing positive material.
 * Attack pages
 * ✅ – these types of pages can quickly become volatile, especially if politics are involved. You can almost liken the handling of these types of pages to the way you'd handle a copyvio, but without having the law on your side. Instead, you may find yourself in a debate with POV warriors who are very passionate about disparaging their target. If there's an obvious BLP vio involved, it helps to have an unbiased admin working in behalf of NPP – we should be so lucky. One would think a CSD would be the obvious choice but it doesn't always work the way it should – it's a gambit. I'm of the mind that if more admins would attend NPPSCHOOL, and actually spend a few weeks reviewing articles, they may be more sympathetic to what NPP has to deal with, and far more willing to follow through on CSD and PROD noms.
 * Pt 2 <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 💬 📧 06:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pt 2 <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 💬 📧 06:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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

I'm a big fan of welcome templates, especially when accompanied by brief notes about edits with which I agreed. When I was more frequently using the New Pages feed and the curation tool, I often declined to provide any feedback to creators, my effort in reviewing already taking more time than I had budgeted (living in my own head, a bad sign). On the other hand, picking up every stray kitten may tend to have profound negative influence on one's agency. In retrospect, I think I cheated myself of positive contact with potential new wikipedians and perhaps slightly deprived those wikipedians knowing of my fondness for the project. During deletion discussions, I'm direct with page creators, assuming good faith in an adversarial process. I can see this is an area where I can study others' positive modeling and improve my behaviors. That said, I need to give myself permission to put this kitten down as well. Perhaps that is why I've asked you to help me with my reviewing proficiency. As you can easily see, brevity is occasionally my target but rarely a bullseye I hit.
 * Discussions with creators of new pages
 * ✅ Brevity has never been my friend, either. I date back to when writers were paid by the word. SMirC-smile.svg <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 💬 📧 02:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

Perhaps you are talking about the many tagging functions of the curation tool? Curation tags are, like warning templates, useful in theory and occasionally helpful in practice. The tags help provide a sort of checklist of possible shortcomings easy and important to identify. Drive-by tagging is in my opinion a buzz-kill, even on new pages. (stray kittens again) They do however provide a time-effective neutral way of approaching new page shortcomings through their directness and specificity (get some citation, link to some other pagespace, add some categories). A personal comment may have the warmth a new page contributor needs to feel validated. Like redirects, personal specific comments are cheap (and disproportionately helpful).
 * ✅ Nicely put.
 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

Working daily on Wikipedia has helped me with some things. Being able to express myself in neutral language is one area where I always want to improve. I once worked with a gentleman of charm and competence whose example in talking to clients was (and is) admirable. His gift/skill is in acknowledging the need without saying yes. It is an extraordinary thing to hear him work. I hope my tone is encyclopedic, even on talk pages. There are closers on Wikipedia like Sandstein and Drmies with whom I often disagree but admire for their direct neutral tone when analyzing the process. I am great with disagreement; disagreement helps me discover whole new worlds of things of which I wouldn't have been aware otherwise. However, (inside my heart of hearts) I take issue when someone in public policy or politics says they've been "clear", which to me signals an unwillingness to entertain doubts, a refusal to accept alternative positions. "Clear": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (from Princess Bride)
 * ✅ You clearly have all the ingredients for adminship. SMirC-chuckle.svg
 * Wikilove/positive comments

I thank a bunch of people, often when I disagree with them but admire their BOLD. I am certain that I've passed out more barnstars than I've received. No surprise, I was living a gnomish wiki-existence for some time and heck for a while was living as a wiki-hermit. It is surprising how often one can turn adversaries into wikifriends by simply extending some humanity, patience, and willingness to admit being in the wrong.
 * ✅ Excellent attitude - and I agree wholeheartedly. I have acquired several wikifriends who were once adversaries. Sadly, the unreachable few will always exist due to epistemic disparities.

I have been fortunate in some of my early wikifriends in that after a brief period of performing vandalism patrol someone I admire asked me to always utilize the escalating user warning templates, which I have done religiously (perhaps overly so in retrospect) ever since. I sometimes struggle to find exactly the right tone, but I often (when I think it will help) add a personal note explaining my issues with the user's behaviors. I understand we're not supposed to template regulars, but a blocking template is a template, so we do have exceptions and shouldn't shy away from use if we think the practiced neutral tone an existing template may provide will get us the attention of the user in question.
 * Warning templates

IMHO, we're attempting to stop the bad behavior and engage the editor responsible. We should affect the outcome, but do the least possible damage. I'm going to wax a little Kung Fu here: "Perceive the way of nature and no force of man can harm you. Do not meet a wave head on: avoid it. You do not have to stop force: it is easier to redirect it. Learn more ways to preserve rather than destroy. Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious nor can any be replaced."
 * Let's avoid handing me any actual reviews today. My current work schedule prevents me from deeply investing time outside of Sun-Tues. While I want to get into the habit of doing NPP daily, I'm not ready to take on that new challenge until I can get the first 20 or so done in an afternoon or evening. I want to address a GA-review Hog Farm is helping me with before I punch through my obstacles here. I am quite happy to engage with my tutor on any related topic in the meantime.
 * ✅ Pt 3 - No problem on waiting to do the exercises.  Just ping me when you're ready. <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  💬 📧 02:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise
, I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. 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 💬 📧 16:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to take liberty with my mentor and just startout by testing the flowchart, merely responding in my first impulse yes or no to the questions asked. This will constitute my initial feel for the page. I'd like to engage with you about my initial readings before using the curation tool, marking appropriately.. But this first few times I'm going strictly by the checklist, to help me focus onto a healthy habit. I realize this may be Heisenberg Principle territory, but neither of us is likely to leave a page hanging just because I'm drilling. BusterD (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you like a Piña Collider before you get started? <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  💬 📧 00:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not the sort of liberty I had in mind. BusterD (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this kind of umbrella drink I might handle. BusterD (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to take on another 5 assigned reviews. I'm interested in your feedback, while I have your experienced attention. BusterD (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

1. Matt Kivel
 * BLP; previously deleted - yes, no, no, yes, (Earwig negative) agf-no for AfC, no, no, yes, CSD A7 (I'd likely AfD it as lacking RS directly detailing)
 * ✅ The flowchart is good practice, and over time the process will become second nature. Having said that, we cannot discount the nuances we encounter when reviewing articles, and why deductive reasoning may trump the flowchart. I have learned from experience with admins evaluating various CSD tags that Heisenberg Principle often trumps the benefits, including an obvious A7, which you just demonstrated. AfDs are iffy because they're subjective. I'm not saying your choice is right or wrong – none of us are perfect when reviewing and neither are algorithms, just that the choice you made happens more often than not. AfD is a safe call, not a WP:BOLD one, but then my perspective is from a growing backlog in NPP's queue along with a splash of WP:10YT Have you read The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta?  <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  💬 📧
 * I'm reading it now. Thank you. You can always throw this sort of stuff at me. I don't do much meta-reading that isn't in the Signpost. I don't necessarily have a bias against connected editing, but in the arena of necessary self-promoters (musicians especially) I have a healthy skepticism. Lately I have begun to value specialized content knowledge and begrudge those who possess it but still operate in a covert way on en.wiki.

2. Neelan K. Sekar


 * BLP; previously deleted - yes, no, no, yes, (En) no, yes, yes, yes, no, no, yes, yes, draftify (which I'd be okay with if agreed)
 * This can be a sticky area relative to global perspective, so I want you to consider the following and add your response below each question:
 * A. There is a reason for the notability banner at the top of this page.
 * I think the subject marginal, but here I confess my ethnocentrism. Truth is, in my present iteration I'd likely avoid reviewing this BECAUSE the sources appear to my eyes to be videos or Tamil in language. Everything I'm seeing and finding during an English Google search BEFORE seems like bare mentions.
 * I'm of the mind that we all tend toward some level of ethnocentrism, inadvertent or otherwise. I am not bringing it up to be critical, rather my intent is to encourage a bit more awareness and consideration to such matters when we're reviewing articles. There was a time (in ancient history) when articles cited to foreign language sources became a pet peeve of mine. I have long since learned how best to utilize Google translate (and, of course, that tool has advanced considerably as well). SMirC-chuckle.svg <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 💬 📧
 * B. Does the recognition Sekar earned (Best Screenplay writer award from Ananda Vikatan Cinema Awards) not qualify him for a stand alone article?
 * I have no idea. I have minor grandchildren older than these awards so I'm not taking these awards too seriously. I should point out to my tutor that recognition gained by winning any award is a presumption of existing sources, not a presumption of notability.
 * SMirC-congrats.svg – consider WP:AUTHOR: or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, and see Super Deluxe (film), paragraph 3, along with his body of work. Granted, he is not Steven Spielberg but he is notable, perhaps arguably so but I'm of the mind his BLP will survive an AfD – some of our decisions will likely be influenced by our own subjectivity.
 * C. Is that award considered insignificant because it is not the Oscars or the Emmys (btw, there's a notability tag on the Awards' article). Filmibeat speaks highly of this award, and scamadvisor gives Fimibeat a high score. Does that matter?
 * Perhaps it does, but yesterday's Cubs game had tens of thousands of attendees, tens of millions of watchers, and thousands of daily newspapers giving a box score and possibly a game wrap-up. I do not hold this game should have its own article. On the merits of THIS subject, I see no reason why an artist with exactly one notable credit can't be rolled into the film's article until significant coverage meeting the GNG can be presented.
 * ✅Excellent point. <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 💬 📧 Oh, and I forgot to mention, neither of the 2 sources I used above are considered quality RS according to SuperHamster's CiteUnseen & Headbomb's unreliable. 17:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * D. Are we considering Tamil cinema insignificant (search brings up 412.000.000 in Google)?
 * Who are you calling "we"? I'm calling the sources marginal and coverage largely routine entertainment coverage which does NOT meet the required standard for BLP.
 * My use of we in the above context was probably not the best choice – apologies. I took the liberty of using it in the general sense, all of which was based on prior debates with various WP editors (the "we") over the years relative to Indian films/actors/directors. It's born of an old habit I formed as a teenager whose father was highly critical of first person use, so I adopted "we" in an effort to present a more objective, impersonal tone. We is obviously not as good as "they" as a pronoun in the neutral singular sense. <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 💬 📧
 * E. Do the billions of people in India consider Sekar and the awards he won or for which he was nominated to be non-notable?
 * IMHO, that's a subject better suited for Tamil Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia. I'm always happy to be proven wrong.
 * Since WP is considered a global encyclopedia that is written in English, we don't limit editing and opinions about events that occur in a specific country to editors in that specific country. The intent of my question is to demonstrate how we arrive at what is or isn't "significant coverage", and what actually satisfies "worthy of being noted". A trainee's answers to my questions are what tell me where I need to focus the training. Sekar co-wrote the screenplay for Super Deluxe (film) which had significant global distribution, including the UK, and US. It's also available on Netflix. It is reviewed in The Hindu, and in Variety which mentions Sekar in their review of the film – alone it does not satisfy N, but when stacked together with his body of work, as well as that film's accomplishments (which is basically recognition of him as a co-screenwriter/author), and the awards, I'm of the mind that he satisfies 1, 3 and 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  💬 📧
 * Since WP is considered a global encyclopedia that is written in English, we don't limit editing and opinions about events that occur in a specific country to editors in that specific country. The intent of my question is to demonstrate how we arrive at what is or isn't "significant coverage", and what actually satisfies "worthy of being noted". A trainee's answers to my questions are what tell me where I need to focus the training. Sekar co-wrote the screenplay for Super Deluxe (film) which had significant global distribution, including the UK, and US. It's also available on Netflix. It is reviewed in The Hindu, and in Variety which mentions Sekar in their review of the film – alone it does not satisfy N, but when stacked together with his body of work, as well as that film's accomplishments (which is basically recognition of him as a co-screenwriter/author), and the awards, I'm of the mind that he satisfies 1, 3 and 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  💬 📧


 * F. On what scale do we gauge significance - globally, nationally, regionally, or locally? Here's a population perspective to consider: UK= 67.22, US = 329.5 million, India = 1.38 billion. Now consider Tamil Nadu population = 67.86 million
 * I try very hard not to judge people by the group or by the groups' size. I think that's a harpy of small minds. I consider avoiding the subject because of mostly non-English sources somewhat a copout, but one a volunteer is able to claim, a normal person's attention being limited in scope and duration. I'll concede the paradox in how my latest response has echoes in the Fernandez reading you linked.
 * ✅ I do so appreciate editors with critical thinking skills as you have demonstrated beyond expectations. <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 💬 📧


 * Looking forward to your responses. <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 💬 📧 14:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

3. List of Minister-Presidents of Brandenburg


 * List of BLPs; (eleven years with zero sourcing?) - yes, no, no, yes, (En) no, no, yes, no, yes (tag as unreferenced), no, correct title, cats yes, list, not stub, curation tool isn't an option (perhaps since it's already been marked as reviewed--how is this reviewed with zero sources and zero tags?)
 * ✅ One that simply slipped through the cracks after undergoing double redirects, and some attention from 4 admins. This is why we have NPP. I went ahead and tagged 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 💬 📧

4. Infinite Death
 * About content produced by living or recently LP; currently notability tag; previously deleted - yes, no, no, yes, n/a, IMHO yes, no, correct title, cats yes, tag tag tag; the checklist says mark as reviewed (I say redirect or merge to Thy Art Is Murder)
 * ✅ The NPP reviewer who tagged that article could have created the redirect per WP:BOLD. I would have hashtagged to the precise mention: Thy Art Is_Murder. <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  💬 📧


 * Update - it was draftified by a reviewer. 17:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

5. FlashPoint (company)


 * CORP; looks entirely promotional (possible G11) and likely PE; currently orphan tagged - yes, no, no, yes, (Earwig positive) brief copyvio of company mission statement so yes, yes, no (all coverage is routine business news about financing), no, yes CSD A7 (but I'd likely nom it at AfD for nothing approaching non-routine reliable sources)
 * ✅ for AfD, in part because with A7, some admins may see the cited sources (Bloomberg, Times of Israel, Vedomosti) and base their decision on Credible claim of significance. Interestingly, the latter is simply an explanatory essay created by a retired user who apparently had issues with CSD. <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  💬 📧
 * All reviews completed, awaiting responses from . <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 💬 📧 14:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: - will be adding more reviews per BusterD's request. (love 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 💬 📧 17:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

6. Hungary women's national under-19 volleyball team, France women's national under-19 volleyball team, Romania women's national under-19 volleyball team
 * For reviews 6 thru 10, go ahead and implement your decision with a live action for each review, and provide your reason(s) for each action below.

You got me here. I'm a bit baffled by the naming which doesn't appear to match. I'm also concerned about 404 errors from one of the few citations, given the living people involved. There's a point I'm supposed to get here but it's staring me right between the eyes. Normally national sports teams even if age-delimited are notable subjects. Sports is not my normal range, though I'm working on womens' basketball this last year (dragged in by the spiritual power of Paige Bueckers). What am I missing?
 * I don't have time to do the others right now, but I didn't want to leave you hanging. See this AfD discussion. <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  💬 📧 21:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

7. Organized crime in London, Ontario

Another corrected copyvio by a blocked user but there's a some good stuff here, if lots of it uncited. Sources are listed if not completely milked yet. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nice! You spent noticeable time there, and I'm impressed. I realize there are mixed feelings among editors relative to infoboxes, but I prefer them. This article would probably benefit from Template:Infobox Uniform Crime Reports. There may even be a series template that could be added or created to help researchers. While it's not our obligation to do extra work, I'm of the mind that those of us who have the where-with-all to improve articles so that it doesn't look like a tag-heavy rush-job certainly can't hurt, but that's just me and my OCD. SMirC-chuckle.svg <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  💬 📧 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

8. Américo Mendoza Mori

I actually like this little translation. The Dora the Explorer puts this into the realm of notable, because of the sources it provided. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I went ahead and added the short description. Red text in an article excites my OCD. j/k (I have not been diagnosed with OCD. I prefer to think of it as being a perfectionist), which is certainly an arguable position to be in. <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 💬 📧 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

9. Anti-Assyrian sentiment

Also no longer a copy vio. There are apparently a lot of these Anti-XXX sentiment articles and they seem like a lot of syth to me. Various tags and project banners. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ why not AfD? Also, if it passes GNG, is properly CEd & WikiGnomed with an infobox added, it would be a good candidate for an infobox series listing other Anti-XXX articles. <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  💬 📧 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

10. General Tests of English Language Proficiency

Apparently no longer a copy vio but could certainly use more citation and cats. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think you did a great job reviewing, BusterD. (sidebar note: there must be something going on with our copyvio BOT, so I'll mention it at NPP.)  <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  💬 📧 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding: articles without Talk Pages make it difficult for editors to follow article milestones and various nominations, including AfDs. Talk headers also alert relative projects of the article's existence when project banners are included. When creating a Talk Page for I will choose one of the following banners depending on the topic and number of WikiProjects that have a direct interest:
 * Happy 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  💬 📧
 * , no rush, but I'm looking forward to your response re: the Youth Olympics. There are only 2 more parts left for you to complete the course so we can Cheers beer.jpg celebrate!   <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  💬 📧 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy 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  💬 📧
 * , no rush, but I'm looking forward to your response re: the Youth Olympics. There are only 2 more parts left for you to complete the course so we can Cheers beer.jpg celebrate!   <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  💬 📧 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , no rush, but I'm looking forward to your response re: the Youth Olympics. There are only 2 more parts left for you to complete the course so we can Cheers beer.jpg celebrate!   <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  💬 📧 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)
A place I've largely avoided recently. I'd prefer to make assertion and it's a bit of a firehose/timeconsumer. I'm much better at assessing consensus today than I was back in the day. Not spent enough time with closures in general, I'll concede.
 * Articles for Deletion

WP:AFD is the main page for content deletion processes with links to relevant policies and procedures; transcluded are the list of ongoing deletion processes, archived by date. An article is nominated for deletion by any registered user, the discussion transcluded in time sequence. While many wikipedians continue to treat this process as a !vote, AfD is one of those places where the adversarial side of consensus-building discussion really shines. A well-prepared contributor may accomplish a great deal by saying very little, making pithy assertion with links.

Seven days' discussion (of widely varying participation) gives wikipedians time and platform for spirited debate on the merits of the original assertion, and while the subject is under direct discussion the page is often improved and previously unrecognized sources presented. Sources presented at AfD may save or rescue (my word choice is intentional) the page and instead of being deleted, it is either �relisted or kept or merged or redirected or userfied or drafted (I might have missed one).

We are expected to make our close by evaluating the entire discussion by the general direction of the conversation, the sample size, and the strength of argument (as assessed by the closer). A closing comment is often very helpful, especially when the discussion has been justifiably contentious. If there is disagreement about the closure, this can be be addressed at Deletion review (where I learned everything I'll ever need to know about deletion arguments which would have served better in the original process). Review is specifically NOT a rehash of the discussion or to evaluate sources; it is instead specifically limited to the merits of the closure.

Recreating a previously deleted page gives the re-creator a higher bar to clear. If the new iteration is essentially the same as the deleted version, the page can be speedily deleted as G4. Often a request to the deleting admin will provide access to the previous version, if an attempt is made to recreate the page. Applying with a draft at AfC is usually the best way for a deleted page to be recreated to pagespace.
 * ✅ And if the bar's too high, make mine a double. <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 💬 📧 23:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * BEFORE nominating

The nominator is expected to begin by making a policy-based assertion the page under discussion should be deleted; reasonable search of existing and readily available online sourcing is due diligence expected of the nominator. !voters are expected to perform their own search prior to asserting, but nothing stops a really dedicated idiot from showing up Yosemite Sam style (as so often happens).
 * ✅ The hegemony of .... 20th Intelligence Squadron.png

In some circumstances it is wiser to propose an article for deletion, to see if any other editor is willing to defend it. If at least seven days elapse without anyone removing the tag, the prod expires and the page is deleted.
 * PROD and BLPPROD

BLPPROD is a simple rule for dealing with unsourced articles about living or recently-deceased subjects: No sources, no article. If a BLPPROD is applied, that tag may not be removed unless at least one source meeting IRS is applied to the page. Even after the BLPPROD is properly removed, the page still may face a deletion procedure eventually. Wikipedians have to make it hard for human beings to use the pedia to injure other humans, either by what is said or what is NOT said.

Soft delete refers to a normal delete close at AfD where the discussion faced minimal or no interaction from the community AND the closer specifically so specifies. Such deleted articles, like prodded ones, can be restored with a just a simple request to the closing admin or a request for undeletion.
 * WP:Soft delete

There are criterion for rapid deletion with no formal process, so long as the page or file meets general or specifically categorized criteria. Some frequent uses of speedy deletion are duplication, copyright violation, clear vandalism or attack pages. I don't tag as much as I used to but I do have a CSD log so one could see my CSD history.
 * Speedy Deletion
 * Pt. 4 with an obvious command of 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 💬 📧 23:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pt. 4 with an obvious command of 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 💬 📧 23:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)
Inside the curation tool, tags for improvement are a codified system, like a demi-checklist one can use with commonly seen issues. I would find it ordinary to apply two or three tags to a less well formed new page. I feel more than that number of tags may have a negative impact on the page creator's willingness. If I didn't think the page had a future I would have draftified or prodded, so if I apply a tag it's because I think this a high priority for page stability and quality. Today I saw a number of what User:JohnPackLambert might reasonably label as substubs (sourced one line articles, today referring to plant species). Adding tags to these articles may actually be disruptive, because these creations were basically attempts to fill out the redlinks on a template and the author has no real intention of further improving them, preferring quantity over quality (a not unreasonable preference at this state of pedia development).
 * Improvement Tagging
 * ✅ Years ago, I ran across several standalone articles that were basically short taxonomic definitions of several different, quite rare subspecies of the same widely known species, and thought our readers would be better served if those articles were combined into a list on WP that also pointed to Wikispecies. Unfortunately, PRODs were not the best approach. I probably should have created the list first, and then attempted to merge or redirect to the newly created list. We live and learn. <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  💬 📧 18:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Cats are always going to be changing/improving so we need to start off with sufficient that the page is seen with its fellows. Two or three is enough to start. Finding categories will come easier after I've done several hundred NP reviews, but so long as I'm in the ballpark I feel fine.
 * Categorizing
 * ✅ HotCat is my lifeline. <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 💬 📧 18:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This is something I need to streamline. I beleive in it but haven't used any helper yet to get me the easy answer.
 * Stub
 * ✅ I keep forgetting to change that wikilink to Stub because we get stuck with quite a few unsourced stubs, or two to three sentence definitions, etc. See this discussion and weigh-in if you've a mind to. <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 💬 📧 18:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pt. 5 on this 4th day of June 2022. <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 💬 📧

Discussion
I'm dodging the Youth Olympics thing for a day or two. Humor me. I'm wondering about customization of the curation tool's messaging. It's very stiff and seems to condescend to even slightly experienced users. If there's no such option, I'd be unlikely to utilize the curation tool for giving comments to creators/editors. Am I misreading this? Has there been discussion(s)? (a stupid question, and I rarely use that adjective anymore) BusterD (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Humor you, ? Absolutely!! 🤡

<div style="-moz-transform:rotate(-180deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(-180deg); transform:rotate(-180deg);margin-right:60%;position:relative;left:10px;">It cracks them up. <div style="-moz-transform:rotate(-180deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(-180deg); transform:rotate(-180deg);margin-right:60%;position:relative;left:10px;">No? Well how about a date?
 * Why don't eggs tell jokes?
 * Do you have any raisins?
 * Back to serious...customization is definitely something NPP should consider, and what I support 💯%. I avoid curation messaging when I can, even if it involves an automatic post I have no control over, I will still contact the article creator directly...provided they're still active. But then, I feel that way about all template messaging. Sports can be a cranky area – be it the Olympic games, or pro/non-pro sports in areas that are not recognized by the majority of WP editors, particularly those with a limited "global understanding" of popular/notable sports that may not fit the mold they're accustomed to, or that draw the same ad revenues as the NFL Superbowl, or various soccer, ice hockey, baseball, basketball, golf and tennis events. Another potential issue is the long-lived idea that female sports are inferior or not notable, primarily based on the nature of media coverage or lack thereof, which bleeds over to age limits and the minimum age/level of competition we're allowed to consider notable relative to national sports champions. Perhaps my questions are a little "loaded", but I promise it is not for nefarious reasons; rather, it is for a better understanding of the justifications behind these limitations. As a problem solver by nature (which tends to create problems of its own when questioning the status quo) I believe in getting these types of questions out to the community to cuss & discuss which generates necessary feedback so we actually can reach a well thought out consensus. <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  💬 📧 19:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a fine fine line between humor and tickle. You seem to have taken a very light tone in this series of dialogues and while I quite enjoy your humor, I hope you don't mind my candor. There's a line from a Paul Simon Song I first heard covered by Annie Lennox:


 * "When something goes wrong


 * I'm the first to admit it


 * The first to admit it


 * The last one to know


 * When something goes right


 * Well it's likely to lose me


 * It's apt to confuse me


 * It's such an unusual sight"


 * I adore both artists but secretly resent Simon for marrying the world's second most expressive female soloist, and for them falling in love on live TV while I was watching. BusterD (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (YGM) For the record, I have nothing but admiration for how you've handled the many instances of NPP tutoring you've performed, including this one. I have no issues with your serious approach to this important work. The word "light" in the comment above was originally a much more specific adjective, but I changed it to the more vague word without perceiving the ambiguity of the usage. It was never my intention to halt or pause our growing friendship and I apologize if I gave any misimpression. BusterD (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For the record - I am flattered by your kind words, and will add that I never had any doubt about your excellent responses to the questions I've posed, knowing they weren't easy ones to answer; rather my concern was just the opposite - I was concerned that you might have been offended by something I said jokingly. Now that we've cleared the air and we're both back on track - let the games begin!! <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  💬 📧 17:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: So I've been stepping my toes in the water and am seeing a lot of this sort of stuff which I consider dispiriting. If this were happening with English speaking editors I'd be thinking there's a lot of upe out there, low edit-count contributors who are here to put their poorly-produced paid article in quietly and then vanish to avoid any undue notice. To my eyes there appears to be a thriving industry for apparently paid articles inside of a certain group of South Asian contributors. Apparent UPE, apparent socking. Me and my ethnocentrism again. I can see having an extra set of skeptical eyes around here would be useful. I've left the temple alone for now. BusterD (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm experiencing a certain amount of inner friction against seeing the NPFeed. It would be a simple thing to always pick easy targets and call it good but that's not the reviewer I want to be. Ideas? BusterD (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Over all my initial experience doing more patrols is that I want to spend as little time as necessary to accomplish as much as possible. This needs to be a mechanical willingness, where I assign myself a given number of minutes and just drill on quickness. It occurs to me that when I see acceptable substubs I should just process them all at one time, the issues among them being similar and the talk page banners being largely identical. This way I can rip through 5-10 patrols in just 5 minutes or so, working briskly. BusterD (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I need to sidebar a bit with my tutor. In the last few weeks I've been working parttime retail and I've learned I just hate the work environment. The people are nice and my supes were quite good people. But the work itself is designed to be so vigorous and rapid as to prevent me from finding any joy in it, other than mere accomplishment. This is a bad lesson to teach an admin on Wikipedia. I have decided I can't operate like that, no matter what the reason or rate of pay. There's a certain form of required and cursory labor to which I object as inadequate to the task, but normal to the workforce. I don't know how to interpret this today, but this I'll be stewing over for some time. Quick isn't always better. More isn't always good. A former employer used as one of his themes "less is more" and I have swallowed that hook line and sinker. More thoughts later. BusterD (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sidebar? Just name your pref...straight-up, on the rocks, or with some rock 'n roll? Off the top of my head relative to your hating "the work environment", when I get stressed, I listen to this and the stress subsides - total relaxation; I should've made it longer - like a week, maybe?  Of course, another option is to find a different work environment doing something you really love to do. I'm of the mind that deep thinkers & over achievers are more prone to deep stress and anxiety. There's something thought-provoking and inspirational in Thomas Gray's phrase, Ignorance is bliss.  Maybe a George Carlin video will stretch your lips and wrinkle your cheeks. One think I'm quite familiar with...quick is better on rare occasion: (1) when on your way to the ER, (2) the bathroom, or (3) when the work day is over & you're headed out the door.  I'm also a believer in quality, not quantity.  Better yet, apply the old used-up maxim, you can only pick 2:  fast, good, or cheap. <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  💬 📧 19:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At Tekserve we called this the Bernstein triangle. At some point in my wiki-career I'm going to take on an already decided challenge (getting that linked article--a now-closed former employer--to GA status); I'll remind you before I'm doing so because I want as many sharp eyes as possible to keep me out of trouble on it. If I forget, remind me of this datestamp. BusterD (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Bernstein triangle]. <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 💬 📧 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate your generous words below. I did it for me. Now I'll be taxing you all the time until I feel more comfy at NPP. This will be for you. You'll know when I'm comfortable because I'll be averaging 10 per day but spending less than 20 minutes on it. I want to find a strong rhthym which helps me to avoid boggling over a subject. Now I'm off to get my lazy butt handed to me by both Hog Farm and Vami IV in GA reviews. Teknically I'm on break but editing today makes me feel like me so guess how I chose to focus up. This sometimes less than serious interaction between us is helping to right my ship. BusterD (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are very much welcome. And don't worry about taxing me – I make brilliant deductions. It was my pleasure to help you right your ship. I even tried to think of a good boat pun to make you smile, and couldn't. Canoe? <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 💬 📧 02:34, 5 June 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.


 * My evaluation of BusterD is that he has all the qualities to be an outstanding reviewer for NPP. He's a thinker with good judgment and not a spontaneous actor. His demeanor is welcoming, and he is very familiar with WP:PNG, particularly the policies respective to being a NPP reviewer.  WP is lucky to have him, not only as an administrator, but as an editor with in-depth knowledge of what NPP entails. <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  💬 📧 19:35, 4 June 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:3PPYB6
<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 and Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA."

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

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

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

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! <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, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)
Notability is not fame, but rather "can you take notes on it?". In other words, is it a noteworthy topic? Notability is required for an article to remain live in the mainspace. An article is assumed to be notable if it meets WP:GNG or WP:SNG for more specific guidelines.
 * Notability

The general notability guideline is very vague, rightfully so since it is general. However, it can be summarized by this:
 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)

Articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable, published, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Secondary sources are things like news articles, books, and journals, not primary sources like official websites or tertiary sources like Wikipedia. Don't use unreliable publications like the Daily Mail. Prefer to use recent, but not too recent sources, as theories might have completely changed since then. Independent of the subject? That means that if you or I have an article here (probably not since we are very non-notable), an editor who writes such an article should not use my own books or my own user page as a source. Sources are more reliable if they have less bias. Prefer a source that gives just the facts rather than overly promotional sources like "Jimbo Wales was the pioneer in his subject, an admirable man whom you should follow his path".
 * ✅ I also recommend that you read the banner at the top of this page, if you haven't already, and ask any questions you may have as a result. My course is somewhat aligned with helping to establish or confirm an editor's critical thinking skills when reviewing articles. It can be a bit more involved than just closely adhering to WP:PAG, or we wouldn't have IAR or need AfD – they would all be PRODs or CSD. <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 💬 📧

Academics: Notability is demonstrated if the subject has made a meaningful impact in their field; this can be demonstrated with awards, promotion to the highest levels in their board, or made a significant contribution in their field.
 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

Astronomical objects: Visible to the naked eye, subject of of multiple non-trivial works, discovered before 1850, or is in a highly important historical catalog. Any one of these conditions must be met to assume notability.

Books: Subject of multiple published works, won a major award, subject of instruction at several schools, or, its author is so notable that any one of the books are notable. Again, any one of these conditions must be met before notability is established.

Events: If they act as a precedent or a catalyst for a more significant event, or they have a noted permanent effect in society.

Films: If they are widely distributed, has an award, is preserved in a national archive, is historically notable or is part of a notable program at a notable school.

Geographic features: Populated, legally recognized places, named natural features, artificial structures that are significant (like a UNESCO World Heritage Site), and roadways are all generally notable.

Music: Subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources (not self-published), single or album on any national music chart, certified gold, notable coverage in a concert tour, two or more albums on a record label, ensemble that contains two+ notable musicians, and vice versa. To add, they can be one of the most prominent representatives of their own style (provided it is notable), has a Grammy/Emmy/Juno/other awards like that, 3rd place or higher in a major music competition, performed for a work of media that is notable, placed in rotation or a featured subject of a national radio/TV network. For composers/lyricists: They must have credit for writing lyrics or music for a notable composition, must have written musical theatre, has had their work used as the basis for another notable composer, has written music that has won in a competition not for newcomers, listed as a major-influence artist, or is covered in multiple secondary reliable sources. Any one of these conditions can be met to assure notability.

Numbers: For complex numbers: Must have papers published on them by professionals, has a MathWorld/PlanetMath article, or at least one commonly accepted name (example: Graham's number). For sequences: All of the former criteria plus listed in the OEIS. For individual numbers: Must have 3+ unrelated interesting mathematical properties, has cultural significance, or is listed in a book. For irrationals: Must have a book, listed in OEIS, listed in a book, or has a commonly accepted name (example: π). Lists are typically not notable.

People: For anyone: Must have an award, a lasting impact in their field, or in a national biographical dictionary. For criminals: Must be a renowned national/international figure, or the motive is very unusual. For victims: Has a large role within a well-documented historic event. For entertainers: Significant roles in multiple notable films, or has a lasting impact in their field. For politicians/judges: Must hold international, national, or state/province legislative/executive/judicial positions, or has significant press coverage. For sportspeople: Must have won a significant honor and so has significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources.

Sports: Basically needs an award/lasting impact in their field. Or is a coach who works with notable athletes.

Web: Must be the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources, and should probably have an award which already has a Wikipedia article.
 * ✅ Nice work - quite thorough.


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

For organizations and companies: Must be subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. Also should have a national/international impact.
 * ✅ Also keep in mind that WP is a magnet for marketing/promotional firms whose job is publicity and making sure their clients shine in the best possible light. Be sure to heck for potential COI, and if you suspect something because of peacockery prose that glows, check to see if they've disclosed a COI, or if they might possibly be a UPE. <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 💬 📧 14:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


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

As an NPP reviewer, I would take these steps:

1) Check if it meets WP:GNG

1.1) Check for multiple sources

1.2) Check the reliability of the sources

1.3) Check if they are secondary sources

2) Check if it meets any of the applicable WP:SNGs

3) Check if the sources can be verified (WP:V)

4) Check for WP:NPOV

5) Check for copyvios and WP:OR

6) Check quality of the prose—if it has any typos

7) If these are not met, then either tag or nominate for deletion—if it meets WP:CSD or WP:PROD I would obviously do that first, but if not, then go via WP:AfD. If it's not too bad, then just tag (maybe copy-edit, needs more sources, etc.)

8) Mark as reviewed if the top 6 are good

9) Rate the article

10) If it seems good, maybe GA, DYK, or FA


 * @Atsme, I've finished this section. I might be an absolute n00b at it and so you may not pass me. In that case, please give me some feedback. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 13:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted at your UTP. <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 💬 📧 21:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Pt. 1 <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 💬 📧 14:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

 * Assume good faith

Always assume that editors are trying to help the project when they edit, not hurt it, unless there is evidence to the contrary. There's this quote: "Never attribute to malice to that can be attributed to stupidity". So, if someone breaks policy, ignorantia juris interdum excusat. Assume they do not know anything and point them to the right policy.


 * Biographies of living people

Before the Seigenthaler incident, you could write BLPs however you liked. However, because some IP created a negative page about John Seigenthaler, IPs were blocked from creating any new articles and the BLP policy was created. Right now, all material about people who are living or born on or after 115 years ago (unless they are confirmed dead/alive otherwise), must be written in a neutral, non-partisan tone. All statements—positive and negative—must be cited with a reliable, published source. When in doubt, do not put in the information.
 * ✅ Good research!


 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)

Any external relationship with something or someone can trigger a conflict-of-interest. Say I lived somewhere and was a high-ranking member of a well-known company. Then I edit the Wikipedia article about it. It's really hard for me to keep neutral if I worked for it, right? I probably won't even cite any sources! In addition, they could pay me to edit Wikipedia in this fashion, and I won't disclose it, maybe citing to you its "none of your business". If you are paid, you must, must, must, must, must disclose your payments and your conflicts of interest. Also note that COI editing is strongly discouraged, but not disallowed. Still, though, it is more recommended that you leave an edit request on the talk page for an unrelated editor to edit that same page for you.
 * ✅ - you have the basics, but I want to make sure you understand that simply being biased is not a COI (or so the argument goes); however, if you're working for, being paid by, or affiliated with the company, that's a different story, and you must disclose and ask for editing assistance. Financial reward and affiliation are what matters most considering the rest of us are out here slaving for free. The WMF's ToU require ...that editors who are being paid for their contributions disclose their employer (the person or organization who is paying for the edits); the client (the person or organization on whose behalf the edits are made); and any other relevant affiliation. This is the policy of the English Wikipedia.


 * Copyright

Wikipedia and copyright is probably the most serious thing on Wikipedia. We're a "copyleft" sort of a thing, which means you can use our works however you want, just credit us and share alike. You can only copy a small amount of prose, like a single quote, but you have to say the rest in your own words. If you put copyrighted prose on Wikipedia, that means others are like "Oh! I can use this!" and then ruin the copyright holder's opportunity to make money from it. Then, we get sued, and it all goes downhill after that. If we use copyrighted content, we must convince the copyright holder to release it under a CC-BY-SA license or something similar to that. Non-free images are semi-allowed; you have to scale it down really hard and swear up and down and left and right that there are reasons to use that non-free image. Copyright violations should immediately be deleted; if the whole page is a copyvio it could get instantly deleted under CSD G12. If there is non-copyrighted text on the page, though, remove the copyrighted text immediately and request RD1 redaction.
 * ✅ The following may add a bit more to your repertoire:
 * User talk:Justlettersandnumbers
 * User talk:Justlettersandnumbers
 * User talk:Justlettersandnumbers


 * Hoaxes

Hoaxes are deliberately false statements on Wikipedia. If a page is a hoax and nothing but a hoax for its entire history, then tag the page under CSD G3. If less blatant, try using PROD or AfD. Hoaxes are difficult to identify, as many of them might be true but obscure statements that are difficult to verify. Hoaxes also differ from articles about hoaxes. A hoax is like "Jimmy Wales did not co-found Wikipedia along with Larry Sanger, Florence Devouard did". An article about a hoax is like "The Devouard-Wales hoax was a hoax that emerged from an anonymous user on the internet over the founder of Wikipedia". The latter is also typically well-sourced. Articles about hoaxes must also be notable to merit their creation.
 * ✅ You've done your homework. ⭐️⭐️⭐️


 * Attack pages

Attack pages are exactly what they sound like: pages that are meant to do nothing but attack their subject, written in a wholly negative tone. If you see a page that is an attack page and nothing but for the whole of its history, you should courtesy-blank it, tag it under CSD G10, then notify the page's creator. Attack pages with a notable subject should be deleted first, then recreated as a neutral, well-sourced article. If the attack page is turned into a neutral, well-sourced article right after its creation, contact an administrator privately and request RD2 redaction. This can also be done if an article was previously neutral and well-sourced but then made into an attack page.
 * ✅ but keep WP:PUBLICFIGURE in mind if the article is political as WP:POV creep may inadvertently cloud your judgment.
 * @Atsme – I'm done with this section, too. Again, I'm probably a giant n00b at these policies and so you should pass me only when you feel like I did well. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that – my course is not an easy one, so if you pass, you will have earned it. Oh, and go ahead and finish Parts 3 thru 5. I can already see that you have a basic understanding of the primary PAGs. The live reviews will follow, and they require close attention.
 * Pt. 2 <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 💬 📧 20:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I'll be traveling for a week and will only have access to cellular data/hotel Wi-Fi, which is very unsecured. As such, I'll probably have to use my public account during that time. Is it OK if I use the public account to continue my training here, or do I have to use my main account for this? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 19:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as you login, it shouldn't matter. <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 💬 📧 20:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Discussions with creators of new pages

You must assume good faith and be civil, for starters. Also, do not bite the newcomers. Remember, that on Wikipedia, ignorantia juris interdum excusat. Assume WP:NOCLUE when a newbie violates policy. One of the most disheartening things to an experienced editor is to drive off a contributor who in the future could be just as, maybe even more, productive as them. Point the user to the policy in a polite manner.
 * ✅ To make sure I correctly understood your response, being civil is not just "for starters" - it's always...correct?  I'm thinking you meant we AGF when we first encounter an issue, but if we later discover the editor is WP:NOTHERE, then we change course in an effort to correctly resolve the issue, while still maintaining civility.  The latter is very important. <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  💬 📧 11:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Atsme – It looks like I did not word myself correctly. 🤦‍♂️ "For starters" means that those two are the things you should do first—the most important things to do when talking to an editor. In other words, "for starters" meant that I started the paragraph off with those two. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 13:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Something for you – – SMirC-chuckle.svg <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  💬 📧 19:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

Automated notifications sound robotic. Rightfully so. When I saw the first user warnings on Wikipedia as a lurker-researcher before I joined, I thought: "Do human editors really act like robots here?". This is great if you want to do something like just notify someone that they have repeatedly vandalized/added unsourced material, if you want to notify them that they're at ANI, or if you're giving them a talkback message. However, sometimes it's better to prove to the editor that you are human—sometimes you should say it in your own words. For ambiguous cases like subtle vandalism or repeated harassment, use the human touch. When saying something yourself, it's important to wikilink to all the appropriate policies and whatever else. I frequently reply to replies to user warnings, telling users what they should look at.
 * ✅ Well stated! <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 💬 📧 11:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

Avoid excessive wiki-jargon. When dealing with a newbie, don't say "WP:BITE", say "Please do not bite the newcomers", for starters. I'll give you another example: "(Your article) has been proposed for deletion because it fails WP:GNG." What? It's much better to just say "(Your article) has been proposed for deletion because it does not meet the general notability guideline. In other words, your article does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable, published sources that are independent of the subject." Show your expertise—don't just say, "Oh, you vandalized". Also, please do not bite, and be civil.
 * ✅ Nicely put. FYI - the curation tool automatically notifies the article creator with the proper tag (some of which we can turn-off in the pop-up); however, if you feel the need to further explain or the editor questions your action, then you're obliged to respond in an understanding and helpful manner, regardless of that editor's manners, or lack thereof. <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  💬 📧 11:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikilove/positive comments

What better than to shower someone with WikiLove? You can thank someone for their edits, or, if they've gone out of their way, use barnstars or kittens or food. Welcome messages are an excellent way to get newbies started. Be positive in your community and use WikiLove every once in a while!
 * ✅ SMirC-love.svg <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 💬 📧 11:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Warning templates

If an editor has made a questionable edit, use these. They can be used for multiple purposes, like warning for vandalism, blanking, or adding unsourced material. After four levels, you typically take the editor to WP:AIV, where they get blocked because of incompetence or just vandalism in general. The levels are as follows:

Level 1 (Note): Assumes good faith, assumes that it was unintentional.

Level 2 (Caution): No faith assumption. Can be used in egregious cases where they clearly and intentionally vandalized.

Level 3 (Warning): Assumes bad faith. Can be taken as a "cease-and-desist".

Level 4 (Final warning): Last warning. Allows the editor once last chance to walk from the edge before they face the admins.

Level 4im (a.k.a. Level 5, Only warning): ONLY warning. Stern in its nature, it gives the user only one chance. This should only be used in gross vandalism/personal attacks.

Sometimes, people can be too fast with warnings. Some start off at Level 2 on a regular basis, where others start off with a simple Level 4, then block. There's also WP:DTTR, where you should not template regulars. Maybe throw in some WP:DTA and say it in your own words.


 * ✅ Your responses tell me you have a good understanding of the basics.
 * Pt. 3 <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 💬 📧 11:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

 * Articles for Deletion

The most conventional way of deletion. Users will discuss and decide whether or not to keep or delete or merge or redirect or do whatever to the article in question. After 7 days, an admin will decide to close or resist it. The decision is largely based on consensus, and so is not a majority vote. Quality, not quantity of the arguments, matters.
 * ✅ Well stated. <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 💬 📧 11:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * BEFORE nominating

BEFORE nominating, please check if it couldn't be deleted under a CSD or a PROD. Also make sure you don't nominate it if it is an obvious speedy keep. If it mainly is non-notable, check at least Google, Google News, Google Books, Google News Archive, and Google Scholar if appropriate. If you are experienced, try checking out the Wikipedia Library; obscure sources will show up there. Check the history, the talk pages, the last nomination, if it has already been PROD'd or CSD'd, and check for copyvios. Also, don't be too fast. If the article has been created within the last 15 minutes, please don't nominate. You should also apply that to articles under an hour old as well. Bombing an article under A7 a minute after creation is totally nonsense. It frustrates the editor and maybe just drives them off.
 * ✅ Well put!! It's good to know that you're aware of TWL, and know how to use that very valuable resource. <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 💬 📧 11:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * PROD and BLPPROD

Proposed deletion is a way of suggesting pages for uncontroversial deletion, yet they do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Typically, you leave a tag with a rationale, and wait for it to be removed within the next seven days. Users should then edit it to address the concerns and remove the tag. If not removed, the page will be soft-deleted, by which editors can eventually request an undeletion if they want it back.

BLPPROD is a slightly different story. It applies to BLPs that have no references at all, not even the most fabricated, unreliable ones in spammy external links. To remove the tag, there must be at least one reliable source that asserts a statement. BLPs can still meet PROD if they do not meet BLPPROD.

If there is even the most unreasonable removal of a PROD tag (excluding BLPPROD), the whole PROD procedure is killed off. It cannot be re-nominated. Instead, you have to take it to AfD, where editors will voice their opinions on whether or not to delete it.
 * ✅ More times than not, a time sink when it has to go to AfD. It would be interesting to get stats relative to # of denied PRODs that actually survive AfD. I just posted that question to our NPP Discussion 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  💬 📧 11:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:Soft delete

Sometimes an AfD has little or no participation at all. In this case, the article is treated like an expired PROD and soft-deleted—users can still request undeletion at the undeletion venue. I actually nominated an article for AfD once and no-one participated; this procedure was then used.
 * ✅ The closer should first determine if it meets the criteria per the process guideline: ...administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times. What typically happens is repeated relisting, a serious time sink for obvious PRODs.


 * Speedy Deletion

These are bright-line criteria. If they meet any of these they can be deleted instantly without discussion at all. Each namespace has its own set of criteria; user-pages, articles, files, what have you. There is also just a set of general criteria that applies to every page regardless of namespace.
 * ✅ Bright-line is typically subjective and determined by whatever admin shows up. If there's even the slightest question, choose AfD.
 * 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 💬 📧 12:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

 * Improvement Tagging

Rather than tag, you should probably be bold and fix it yourself. If you cannot do that, tag it. Some examples are: needs copy-edit, needs more sources, or is a rough translation. There are tools to do this, like Twinkle or the page curation toolbar. However, please only tag the useful ones, as WP:OVERTAGging is quite disruptive.
 * ✅ Good response!


 * Categorizing

Categorizing is putting the article into a group in which it shares something in common. It is done by placing links like [[:Category:Example]] into the article. This allows the reader to discover similar articles and is also done to organize an article into its relevant place.
 * ✅ PAGs completed.
 * 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 💬 📧 12:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Atsme, I'm done with all of these. If you pass me, I'll continue on the live reviewing exercises. Thanks! — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 00:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Give me a few, and I'll provide the queued 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 💬 📧 12:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise
I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. Feel free to copy edit and/or find & cite sources if needed. Ok,, <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 💬 📧 21:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Atsme – Large n00b at this, but I'm done. Probably not going to pass this time because I have never done this before. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 21:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Plus (film)
 * I checked the sources first; a significant portion of them were from a reputable newspaper—the Times of India. We also have The Hindu and the Deccan Chronicle. So, under a glance, GNG would technically be met—but it falls short of WP:NFILM—none of the criteria are met. Most of the statements are verified, but some remain unsourced—best tag with a refimprove. The article mostly just sticks to the facts, despite the film being panned by critics. I ran it through my trusty Earwig and the only similarities were direct quotes (a "small amount of prose"). Finally, I saw a few MOS:CURLY violations—although I promptly fixed that. Bottom line, I'd mark that as reviewed, but tag it with a refimprove.
 * See WP:RSP - you will use it often. ✅ The Hindu. But not so much Achtung-orange.svg The Times of India, and the rest are questionable.  FYI - are you aware of the scripts at the bottom of this training page? The SuperHamster & Headbomb scripts will prove helpful, if you don't have them already. <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  💬 📧 21:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Q: Do you think this article would have passed AfD?
 * A: Probably not. Films like these are very obscure and do not see a lot of participation in AfDs other than some WP:PERNOM deletionists.
 * ✅ It actually didn't make it: Articles_for_deletion/Plus_(film), was apparently userfied, a few more sources were added, and it was moved to mainspace. <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  💬 📧 01:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

2. Kiss Me (Ed Sheeran song)
 * This one appears to narrowly pass WP:GNG, and it does meet WP:NMUSIC in the sense that it received a 2× platinum in the U.S. It appears to have two sources listed as "no consensus" and a couple of primary sources (use there is acceptable since they verify the facts) . We also have a Billboard citation—a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, as well as citations to the BPI and the RIAA, which are also reliable. All statements seem to be verified—albeit some rather poorly. One is even sourced to the sheet music. As the article is not that long, NPOV is easier achieved—and achieved it was. I could not find any bias within the text. Running the article through the Earwig, I see that it is kinda sus… barely within a "small amount of prose". The quality of the prose is good, though. I would mark the article as reviewed, but I would place a refimprove tag and an unreliable sources tag.
 * ❌ - I'm not quite sure why you're thinking narrowly pass. As a single, it went 2x Platinum (RIAA), peaked at #20 on Billboard, has over 50 million views on this YouTube, and in the millions on others. There's no question about its notability. The article already includes several good refs - no need to tag anything. <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 💬 📧 21:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought "narrowly pass" because there were four secondary sources (two marginally reliable, one is the sheet music, one is reliable (Billboard)) and five sources I thought were primary from a skim (although they are arguably secondary now that I think about it). You're right about the good refs—that was a wrong on my part. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 21:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , in an effort to impress upon you things that I believe are important to your success as a NPP reviewer, I've added some bolding & highlights. Following are a few suggestions that I believe will help you:
 * (a) when you first arrive at an article to review, forget about WP:PAG for the first few minutes of your review, and ,
 * (b) once you've got a handle on what the article has been through, read the article...
 * (c) ask yourself if this subject or person is notable but before you decide, read, re-read, and re-read again the top of this training page – Notability in a nutshell: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice."  Please consider notable and  
 * (d) how has this topic/person been received over time - was it a one time thing, or did it last?
 * (e) what significance does it carry, if any? For example, a TV show that lasted 4 seasons and aired once/week to millions of viewers, or perhaps it was an event that marked a milestone in history that may not have received widespread coverage in early media because there was no TV back then and newspapers were local, or perhaps it was overlooked by modern media...think about the variables, and keep WP:NEXIST in mind.
 * If an article either has no sources or poor sources, you can either tag the article or try to find sources yourself. It may be a draftify, CSD, or AfD candidate, but before you can make such a judgment, you must make the effort to find at least 1 RS for assurance that it's not a hoax or WP:OR. If you have trouble finding sources, try modifying the keywords in your Google search, and/or try using Duck duck go, or Bing searches.  If you see historic significance, look in Newspaper archives. If you don't have university access to a library, then sign-up for access at WP:TWL.  Reviewers need to apply their critical thinking skills when reviewing articles – we are not AI that simply works according to a scripted program. As reviewers we need to approach new articles with thoughts of keeping them, or improving them if we can, and make deleting them a last resort. <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  💬 📧 01:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

3. Metaliteracy


 * This one is definitely notable. It is covered by multiple published books and journals. I do not think any SNGs apply to this article, so GNG would apply. That is passed by a long shot. All sources I verified except for the paywalled ones (although I trust that they say what is behind it). NPOV also seems to be achieved; there is not much puffery. Running it through the Earwig, I found a few coincidences and one quote. The quote is covered by WP:NFCC. The prose was not that great; I found a few MOS violations in there. I quickly fixed them, though. Definitely should mark this one as reviewed.
 * ✅ Nice 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 💬 📧 21:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

4. Intro Bonito


 * At a glance WP:GNG would narrowly be met, but WP:NALBUM not. This album is covered by works such as The Guardian, Entertainment Weekly, and Insider. However, NALBUM states seven points in which all are failed. Being viral on TikTok does not guarantee notability. Since CSD A9 has two criteria, in which one is already failed (Kero Kero Bonito has an article), it cannot be A9'd. Looking at its history, it has been redirected to the Kero Kero Bonito article. All sources are again verified, but some very poorly (one is cited to Apple Music). A short article should achieve NPOV much easier, as evidenced earlier. As expected, the article's text remains neutral and nonpartisan. Forcing the article through the Earwig, the Earwig regurgitates "two quotes covered by NFCC". There is also one MOS:CURLY and cite error in there; I fixed that very promptly. I would mark this one as reviewed, but tag it with a notability and watch it to see if it gets redirected back (no surprise if it is).
 * ✅ Good response. <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 💬 📧 01:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

5. Shereé Whitfield


 * Ah, nothing better than to close this round with a BLP. Whitfield is somewhat notable, passing WP:GNG—she is covered in People, Entertainment Tonight, and E!, which are reliable according to Gossip Cop. Whitfield also barely fails WP:NACTOR; she appears in The Real Housewives of Atlanta, but nothing else. She also fails WP:ANYBIO—she does not have an award, a lasting impact, nor is listed in a national dictionary. All sources remain verified. I added a bit of content to this page which is sourced and has NPOV. However, it isn't broken—NPOV already is there. Putting the Earwig to work again, one source is kinda sus—with a few direct/close paraphrases. I modified the text to be a bit more in our own words. Fortunately, though, there are no MOS violations, and the prose is pretty good. I would mark this one as reviewed but leave that notability tag up there—the notability of this article is vaguely evidenced and rather ambiguous.
 * ❌ I'm pretty sure that BLP will easily get through an AfD. She's a regular on a TV show that has lasted 4 seasons, and she has widespread coverage. <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 💬 📧 01:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
, after you've read my comments above, please respond in this section if you have any questions, or want to comment, etc. My evaluation will follow once this comment section is closed. <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 💬 📧 02:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * For #5, I thought NACTOR would be covered by multiple TV shows—RHOA, the show she stars in, is just one. To be honest, I was going to remove that notability tag up there justifying GNG, but after looking at the history (edit summary of the tagging editor was "The article seems to fail notability and lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. The person is a secondary reality tv personality, has only appeared in 'The Real Housewives', and lacks any resume, significant occupation, or coverage outside of the show.") I decided for it to remain up there on the basis of ANYBIO. It would probably survive an AfD, I agree, but it may need a little bit more. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 02:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears you misinterpreted the guideline (my bold): Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; Keep in mind that a film is typically 90 min., and usually viewed once which explains the need for "multiple" – one hit wonders may be borderline unless it's a "classic" that has survived for generations – nuances abound. On the other hand, episodic tv = a different show once/week (multiple shows, and seasons). A single one-hour special that is televised only once, maybe not so much, but if it's televised on various stations over the course of 2 years (to millions of viewers internationally) it is notable, as is episodic television with their "regulars" which easily covers GNG, as does media coverage. There's a difference between "multiple" and "numerous". For example, the most common multiple births are twins; you can use multiple for 2 or 3 but you wouldn't use numerous for 2 or 3. The following essay may help put things in perspective: WP:GNGACTOR <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  💬 📧 03:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So, with a renewed interpretation: Multiple episodes over the course of 14 years (RHOA) = multiple TV shows. I did my research, and 279 episodes with a total of 32.52 million views on average (each one being approximately one hour in length) means that the total run time exceeds 12 days. 279 episodes over a course of 13 seasons, in this interpretation would be construed as "multiple", and Whitfield, airing on 7 of those, would also be construed as "notable". (This is arguably WP:OR—peanut gallery, do not use this in your articles). — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 11:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, in this case it would be numerous. SMirC-wink.svg Over time and with practice, you will be able to recognize these types without having to do such deep research. Actually, being able to satisfy our 3 core content policies matters most. When a new article is being considered as a stand-alone, we prioritize WP:V and WP:RS, followed by WP:NOR, then WP:NPOV.<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 💬 📧 13:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ See evaluation 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  💬 📧 13:12, 14 June 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.

Final evaluation
In light of the challenges and rigorous reviews this trainee has tackled with level-headedness, patience and an obvious willingness to learn, I support advancing him to NPP with a 90 day probationary period to allow him time to gain experience. I don't see even the slightest potential for any major mistakes, or disruption; rather, I see this reviewer as one who will grow and become a proficient NPP reviewer. <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 💬 📧 13:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

this course w/suggested 90 probation to gain experience (which will be up to the granting admin). Congratulations! , when you apply for the NPP user rights, remember to include a link to this page. Considering our user rights backlog, I recommend going directly to an administrator who is familiar with your 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 💬 📧 13:12, 14 June 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:Dr vulpes
<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 and Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA."

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

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

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

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! <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 💬 📧 11:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

 * Notability

Notability is the base standard for information and topics to have inclusion in Wikipedia. It an attribute of the subject in question not of the article that is written about it. This policy is in place to prevent arbitrary addition of topics and articles. Articles in general are believed to pass this standard if they are not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy (Wikipedia is not a lot of things) and can pass one of two tests set forth in either the general notability guidelines (GNG) and subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG). Nothing ensures that a topic will have a dedicated article, editors or the community may merge articles into one larger article. There are a few reasons for this framework to exist. These rules, guidelines and associated policies ensure that articles are not passing along misinformation or host indiscriminate collections of information. We establish the presumption of notability by utilizing using published reliable, and independent sources which have received significant coverage. The most important parts of this section for me was the discussion on the use of secondary sources. I spend a lot of time working with systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses so that part really hit home as a structural part of Wikipedia. The part of this section that I learned the most from was establishing what factors come into play to merit an article.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 02:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Nice summary. <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 💬 📧 19:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)

The General Notability Guidelines establish one of two standards used to test if a topic should be included in Wikipedia. The topic must be supported by sources (preferable secondary), which are reliable and independent. There are a wide array of sources that can be considered including newspapers, academic articles, government reports; there is no hard limit on the number of sources needed but in general there should be at least a few sources from different authors or groups. It is important that these sources be neutral in their point of view. Reliable sources are sources that are verifiable and which notability can be established. Secondary sources such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses are good ways to ensure that a topic is notable, reliable and accurate. Independent sources are an important part of establishing notability because they remove the subject from process. Sources coming from a subjects personal or professional website are not independent but an analysis from an outside party not connected to the subject would be. For example most of the time it would not be appropriate to use a self published source as a way to establish notability. There must have been significant coverage dealing with the topic. If there are some verifiable facts but not enough to satisfy the guidelines, then it might be helpful to take that to another article and see if it would be a good fit. The most important part of this section that I learned was addressing verifiable sources to establish notability. This is where the whole concept of notability really started to click from me. The part of this section that I learned the most from was identifying sources. A lot of my edits have been academic articles, academic databases, and a few newspapers. Going over the sections on self published work and when it is ok was insightful to me.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 02:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nice summary but I want you to give more thought to your statement: It is important that these sources be neutral in their point of view. See WP:NPOV which begins (my underline): All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. What matters most is an editor being neutral in their choices so they can present all significant views, not that the sources themselves must be neutral, although there are degrees of bias that might make a source questionable. WP:BIASED states: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. IOW, choosing RS is the responsibility of the editor, so if they choose only biased sources that align with their POV, they are probably not going to be compliant with NPOV when adding material if they are reliant only on the sources that reflect their own biases. See WP:OPPONENT. NPP reviewers look to make sure the subject is (a) notable based on the inline citations to RS, (b) that the article is presented in a neutral, dispassionate tone, and (c) that there is no OR. <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  💬 📧 19:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

Some areas of Wikipedia have created subject specific notability guidelines which are used to guide when an article should be written. These guidelines were created through consensus among editors in that area and can have different uses and applications. For example the SNG guidelines for films gives some rules on inclusion of undistributed films as well as a few resources to consult when looking for sources to establish notability. On the other side of the spectrum you have the SNG guidelines for companies and organizations which give detailed instructions on how to apply the guidelines and example analyses. The collection of SNG guidelines exists to help establish notability in cases when GNG may be too permissive, lack guidance, or be too restrictive. The most important part of this section for me was reviewing the different SNG guidelines, it me took awhile and I feel like it will be something I will have to return to again and again. That is in no way a complaint about them, it's just that some are very different and have different use cases. The part of this section that I learned the most from was the variety of views and processes that go into these guidelines.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Well stated. GNG is primary. Some aspects of SNG are currently under discussion. For example, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability (sports). <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  💬 📧 21:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


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

Establishing notability for a company or organization goes though a more robust system of checks and guidelines. Just because an organization exists does not mean it is notable, if an organization does not have a secondary independent source referencing it then it is really hard to say it’s notable. For example, at one time I had a small company, even though I could provide a lot of primary sources for its existence it would not meet pass the notability guidelines for inclusion. Even if my company had someone famous or notable associated with it that would still not make the company notable. This rule is in place to prevent the promotion of the organization in questions as well as ensure that wikipedia does not become a place for the the creation of indiscriminate collections of information. One part of this rule that I liked was how it laid out a long list of example of "trivial coverage", I personally find these sort of things very helpful. One area that I can find myself working in is geographic features. I have an interest in the Sierra Nevada backcountry and found these rules for establishing notability to be really well laid out. One thing that I found to be important in these guidelines was that the use of maps or tables can't allow be used to establish notability. This sort of rule makes sense or you would get an article for every single hill and bump on any map. Other factors beyond just the location of places are also taken into account such as being a heritage site. As with the guidelines for notability of organizations, subjects do not just inherit notability which ties well into the rule covering maps and tables. The more important part of this section for me was the organization and companies rules. There are a lot of them and they are very detailed, this is nice as the editors who put this together clearly wanted to make sure there was as little gray area as possible. The part of this section that I liked the most was the notability guidelines for geographic features, it made me excited to name some important areas in the back county as well as pushed me towards a more holistic style of approaching editing. It might sound silly but I grew a little bit as an editor after reviewing the guidelines and the other material linked there.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good job. You have a good grasp on what's expected to meet notability for companies & organizations. Since you also mentioned NGEO, see the discussion at Village pump (policy). These types of guidelines are updated or changed from time to time, so you will probably be referring to them regularly while working NPP. Just when you feel comfortable having memorized them, they are likely to change or be challenged. <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  💬 📧 21:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


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

I would start off by trying to work on articles that had a higher priority such as those which have been waiting the longest for approval. Next, I would make sure the article is written in English. Then before the real work started, I would review the content of the article to make sure that I didn’t have any conflicts of interest either real or possibly perceived. Then I would follow the following flow chart.


 * Check if the article meets the standards for speedy deletion
 * G1 Nonsense
 * G2 Test Page
 * G3 Vandalism/Hoax
 * G10 Attack page
 * G11 Promotional in Nature
 * If any of this is unclear it is ok to ask for outside help or to walk away and let someone else handle it.
 * If there appears or I think there could a copyright violation, I would take a moment to check it with the proper tools.
 * Establish which notability guidelines the article falls under either subject specific or general
 * If the article falls under general notability guidelines
 * Are the sources reliable and independent?
 * Are there multiple sources? If not, can I find something that would support it from a source I’m comfortable with. (This is what I do now when reviewing article changes)
 * If the article falls under subject specific guidelines
 * Review guidelines for that subject area
 * Apply the guidelines to the sources but with the modified rules set forth in the subject specific guidelines.

Check the sources in line with the subject guidelines If I was unsure about a step I would check the flowchart and review the notability guidelines. Again, at this step if I was confused or unsure and unable to find an answer on my own I would reach out for help. It is better to do a few articles correctly then a lot of articles with some errors.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 07:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Excellent! The curation tool will be a big help, but I highly recommend making a habit of checking copyvio first, then going to the edit history, and checking it for reverted redirects, and other issues to make sure they are not still issues. The NPP queue has filters so you can actually select the types of issues you feel comfortable reviewing. The curation tool provides a brief history of the article, but the edit history provides the full history. <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 💬 📧 21:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey Atsme I've finished this first section. Let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Thanks for your time and for accepting me into the program.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 09:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pt. 1 -, please proceed to Pt. 2 & Pt. 3, and ping after you have completed those 2 sections. <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 💬 📧 21:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

 * Assume good faith

It’s important to always assume that editors are trying to improve the project. I can see why this can be hard at times, I just reverted some vandalism to articles, and it can make you feel a bit prickly afterwards. But those are the obvious exception to the rule because malice was easy to prove. By starting with an assumption of good faith it creates an environment that can bring in new editors, ideas, and articles. Examples of this policy can be found in every single one of my own mistakes, editors assumed good faith and nudged me toward to correct behavior or resource.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Biographies of living people

Articles covering living people (or who were born 115 years ago) are held to a higher standard due to the sensitivity of the material. These articles must be written in a non-partisan tone, be as neutral as possible and depend on sources that are both reliable and verifiable, so much so that sources which are poorly sourced can be removed without discussion. Because we can't have nice things there is a policy for speedy deletion that covers attack pages. These polices exists for to protect the persons privacy, and reduce the potential of doing harm. For example, people who are not public figures and are accused of a crime should not have that included in an article about them. Same for personal information and the names of family members.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ We include what the media says, and are careful how it's phrased per REDFLAG, and GUILT. We also use intext attribution.


 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)

Conflict of interest editing can take shape in different ways. First and most importantly it is important that editors disclose that they have a conflict of interest. This doesn't mean that subject matter experts can't write about their fields of expertise but if they are being compensated to edit or could be indirectly compensated they should disclose it. External relationships such as family members, work, and investments can all trigger a conflict of interest. For example, I shouldn't (strongly discouraged) write articles about companies I own stock in because I could benefit from it. Same goes for people I'm related to or am in a relationship with because edits to those articles would have a harder time staying neutral. COI is not the same as bias although in softer cases I can see how an editor might honestly believe they are being neutral.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes, and it's a good idea if it is a BLP about a friend or acquaintance, make sure other uninvolved editors are overseeing it to make sure it remains factual, dispassionate, and neutral.


 * Copyright

All text content on wikipedia is automatically copyrighted but it and the edits to it are licensed under either GFDL or CC BY-SA licenses. Some material that is in the public domain is acceptable to use on Wikipedia same with material that falls under fair use, but this should be avoided as much as possible and material that is compatible with the CC-BY-SA license should be used instead. I have run into this problem while adding photos from iNaturalist to articles about plants here on Wikipedia because the default license for uploaded images is CC BY-SA-NC, these two photos of Lignum-Vitae in Bonaire are lovely but this one uses a CC BY-SA license and the other uses a CC BY-SA-NC license. Any material that is hosted on wikipedia that violated copyright must be taken down. Links to copyrighted work are allowed but not if this source you are linking to is already breaking copyright laws. Works of the federal government are generally in the public domain with some exceptions.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 04:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ And a good human resource to check with if you're unsure or need an image see who also has a UP on Commons.


 * Hoaxes

Don't spread misinformation and hoaxes. There is a certain level of public trust and people have made mistakes because they fell for a hoax or misinformation in an article. This is a problem that is made easier by the fact that anyone can edit it and is something I've noticed while reviewing articles. When you come across an article that is an obvious hoax it is a candidate for speedy deletion, if an article is just suspected of being a hoax then the normal proposal for deletion should be used. The part of this section that I enjoyed the most was reading the list of hoaxes.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 04:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Attack pages

Even more clear cut than hoaxes and misinformation attack pages are not allowed. This is important as the person being attacked in the article might have their privacy violated and could be put in danger. These articles qualify for speedy deletion. Any content about a living person is still bound by the Biographies_of_living_persons policies. It is also important to note that negative content about a public figure does not always mean the content or page is an attack page. Beyond people organizations can also be targeted and care should be taken when reviewing them.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 04:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pt. 2 <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, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Discussions with creators of new pages

As mentioned before when working with editors you should always assume good faith as well as show people kindness and civility. By creating a welcoming and warm environment we can enable new editors to become more active in our community. Giving new editors helpful resources like Wikiproject communities can help them find a sense of community and improve their work. If the editor has really improved an article it’s always nice to reach out and let them know their work is appreciated.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss
 * Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

This topic ties into working with new editors as with most of the notifications sent to them may be their first. The first message left on my talk page was an automated message about leaving my sandbox full of content, it was exciting to see someone commented but I felt kind of let down that it was an automated message. The first interaction a new user has should not feel like a trip to the mailbox. Manually notifying someone about an issue can be really helpful in the event you see an editor making good progress but just needs a nudge in the right direction. Other times when an issue is a repeated offense sending a human explanation of why what they are doing is wrong can be much more impactful than a robotic form letter of a violation. Automated notifications are great for pointing out small errors, sending out important notifications, or if you’re trying to gather consensus on an issue within a community.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

I’m an educator so I know about the importance of respect of understanding when working with people who have differing levels of knowledge and skills. Making people feel unwelcome or worse stupid can turn them off from participating. Making sure your message is clear, is just as important as kindness. Not everyone here has native level English language skills, also there’s a constant risk of intent and information being lost online.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikilove/positive comments
 * Wikilove/positive comments

I liked this part a lot (the kitten template is also very cute), I think it sums up a lot of my previous responses. A lot of the principles outline in the Wikilove article are things that can help bind a community together. Keeping your cool and not getting frustrated is one that I think hits hard when working on internet projects. As well as forgiving and forgetting and the assumption of good faith. Keeping a community positive isn’t always easy but it’s something to strive for.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Warning templates

The warning templates are used to notify an editor that they’ve been making edits that are not constructive or are breaking the rules such as links to spam content or personal attacks. These should be taken into account with the experience of the editor in question. Most of the material before now has focused on working with new editors, I found the essay Don't template the regulars to helpful here when dealing with experienced editors, it bought up points that I knew but that I know I would forget about. The levels warning start with a notice about an issues and is generally assumes the error was a mistake as we assume good faith. The next level is a caution, at this level we no longer assume that an issue is a mistake. The third level is a warning, at this level we assume that the issue at hand was made in bad faith. Finally a final warning can be given which is the final chance for an editor to stop their disruptive behavior. There are some cases where instead of escalation or steps of warnings we move right to a final warning. This happens when an editor is doing something so disruptive that their malicious behavior needs to be adjusted urgently.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey Atsme I've finished the second and third sections. Let me know if there is anything else I need to do.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pt. 3 - Good job, please proceed to sect 4 & 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 💬 📧 12:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

 * Articles for Deletion

Articles for deletion is the process where editors come together to decide if an article is should be kept, merged, removed or redirected. The process starts with an article being nominated, then after discussion is started it will be posted for at least 7 days for others to opine on the matter. After consensus is reached an administrator will perform the appropriate action. I've be apart of this process before, once I nominated an article and then withdrew my nomination and another time I wrote an article that did not meet the requirements of notability.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 04:50, 22 June 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 💬 📧 22:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * BEFORE nominating

Before you nominate an article for deletion there are a few steps you need to take to be sure your nomination is fair. First check the criteria for speedy deletion and be sure the article doesn’t qualify, also review any concerns that may exist such notability and the verifiability and reliability of the sources used. After these steps you should considered alternative opportunities to salvage the article including merging it with another article, redirecting to another article, tagging the article with areas it needs to improve, and improving the quality of sources cited. One thing I’ve seen on other talk pages that I have found helpful is when someone isn’t an expert or has a concern about an article, they reach out to other talk pages or the attached Wikiproject for guidance.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 21:57, 22 June 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 💬 📧 22:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * PROD and BLPPROD

Proposed deletion is a quick way to remove an article from Wikipedia that does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion and is faster than the Article for Deletion process. First the article is nominated including the editors reasoning and concerns. After the Proposed Deletion tag is added to the article it will be deleted by an administrator after at least seven days. If you are an editor and agree with this decision, then you may second the deletion by adding a tag seconding the removal. If you see the proposed deletion tag and disagree you just have to delete the tag to stop the process, you should also explain why you did so and notify the editor who placed the tag that you did so. During the seven-day window if anyone objects to the deletion the entire process stops and the article must use the Article for Deletion process instead. This system is in place to remove articles that are non-controversial. Biographies of living people that are unsourced may be tagged for removal if sources are not supplied within seven days. It is important to note that the article can still be tagged with a normal proposed deletion tag and that this process exists to removed unsourced articles only.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 22:15, 22 June 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 💬 📧 22:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:Soft delete

If a deletion discussion has low participation it may be soft deleted. This means that the article can be restored by making a request for undeletion. Instead of a deletion article can become redirections instead.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 22:43, 22 June 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 💬 📧 22:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy Deletion

Speedy deletion has strict sets of rules that must be met in order to bypass the articles for deletion discussions and process. As with other deletion processes anyone can request a speedy deletion but only administrators will delete the article. In most cases the creator of the article is not allowed to remove this tag unless they request the deletion, articles were created in the wrong place, or the created article is dependent on another now nonexistent article. If there is a reason to be concerned about someone’s privacy the speedy deletion process is not the process that should be used, these issues need to be resolved by the oversight team which can be reached using the form on their page or email. If there is a concern about a person’s physical safety use the emergency contact email or page form.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 22:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 💬 📧 22:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 💬 📧 22:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

 * Improvement Tagging

There are a lot of tags that can be used on Wikipedia. Most of the tags are used to highlight articles that have problems and need some help. Tags help editors understand mistakes and improve their work, it’s always important to assume good faith when tagging articles. Some users might not have the skills or experience to fix issues on an article. Being able to point editors towards the proper resources can help make articles better and make editors not feel stupid or attacked. Most articles that use tags are start and stub articles, longer articles in general do not need a tag for the entire article. These issues can be resolved by fixing the issues yourself if you’re able or leaving a message in the talk page highlighting the problem and ways to fix it.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 23:05, 22 June 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 💬 📧 22:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Categorizing

Categories enable users to find similarly grouped articles. It is important that these categories are easy to find, in general this means that categories shouldn’t contain unneeded abbreviations or jargon e.g. Category:EC 1.16.1, Category:JBIG, & Category:JCT FC). All articles should have at least one category and it should be as specific as possible for example an article on Giant Sequoia Trees should be in the category of Category:Endemic flora of California and not Category:Endemic_flora_of_North_America. Adding articles to categories should be done with care and there should be a source that supports adding an article to a category. As with other articles covering living people this standard is higher than with other articles, adding people to categories based on assumptions is unacceptable and can still cause harm . There are also categories which can be used to help editors maintain articles and keep them hidden from most users.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 23:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thx for that reference. I was unaware. Wow!!
 * 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 💬 📧 22:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey User:Atsme, I've finished sections four and five. Let me know if there's anything else you need from me. Thanks!  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 23:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well,, I am duly impressed with your responses throughout the PAG portion, so now it's time to move on to the reviews. Give me a little time to find the articles I want you to review. Once I've added them, please proceed with 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 💬 📧 22:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise
Before you begin, read the Notability in a nutshell banner at the top of this page, study it and think hard about the message it's sending. Read it again.

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

1. Carl-Detlev Freiherr von Hammerstein This article about a living person so going forward we have to be careful with what sources we allow and the content of the article. The article is written in English and is not a candidate for speedy deletion (G1,G2,G3,G10,G11). Although the article is short it is not blank and has not been blanked by the author. The sources cited are in germen but after using google translate I didn’t see any copyright issues. There are at least two sources and they both appear to be verifiable and reliable. One of the sources is a primary source so this article should try and get another source or two. The topic of this article is probably notable although the sources don’t make it easy. There’s a chance that the author of the article has a conflict of interest as he has only published this article and edited for people with the last name Hammerstein. A quick google search shows that the photo is correct for the articles topic. I would tag this article with either a clean up or copy edit flag because the tone of the article sounds like it was taken off a website. Also I would either add an infobox requested tag or just fill it in myself. Since there’s an issue with the sources I would either leave a more references tag or just find some myself, in this case since I can’t read germen I would leave a tag. I would make this as reviewed.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 23:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ See WP:NPOL. Also go back to that article, and review how I cleaned it up a bit before marking it reviewed.  After the tweaking, I saw no reason to tag it since it's already marked as a stub and the TP already includes the relevant Projects. <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  💬 📧 13:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

2. Wehem This article is written in English, is not a candidate for speedy deletion (G1,G2,G3,G10,G11), and is not blank or has been blanked by it’s author. There is enough information to identify the subject and the identify was able to be confirmed using the sources. I thought that there might have been a copyright violation but found that the page had just copied this article https://dbpedia.org/page/Hania_(TV_series). Reading thought the sources there’s a lot of information that could be added so I might add a tag for that. I checked the SNG guidelines for films and then realized that I should have been looking at the guidelines for television. The guidelines for television aren’t officially notability guidelines but I’ll use them anyway with this article. The article passes notability checks for both GNG and SNG. The image used for the TV show says it’s licensed under fair use which does not meet the content criteria. I would tag the file as non free. Also they uploaded the image to Wikipedia and not Commons, if the image was using the correct license I would probably export it to Commons or leave a note on the Talk page. Checking the sources shows that they need to be updated with the authors names for the articles. It’s kind of hard to tell if these websites that are cited are legitimate but that’s a cultural issue for me and not the article. The citation for galaxylollywood.com can be removed as it’s just a brief mention of material that’s already found on the other sources. I would tag the first paragraph with citation needed tag as there are no citations currently. This article is about a TV show that started yesterday, if this was a show that had been running longer, I would include a tag to include information about the shows plot. I would rewrite the reception section as it is claiming praise for a teaser trailer of the show. I know that this is a new show but there should be a review of at least the first episode online by now. I would also get right of the italics used for the names, it’s a small edit I can make. I would make this as reviewed.
 * ✅ This one is 50-50 because it's new and there's only 1 episode WP:NOTCRYSTAL, although there is some coverage of episode 2. But is this series really notable just because it was produced? The numbers of views on YouTube are not impressive. While the coverage tells us about the 1st episode, it's obliquely promotional about the series - it's in the marketing and promotion stage. Also see the Project's list of AfDs to get an idea of what is being kept vs deleted. If you are still uncertain about a PROD or AfD, consult with the project members, or skip reviewing that article altogether. BTW, fair use of the image has already been accepted by our WP image checkers.  We do not accept any fair use images on Commons. <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  💬 📧 14:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

3. Choi Jae-seo

This article was really hard because there are not a lot of sources in English. Even Google had problems finding anything about this guy. I would have either asked for help from some of the folks at WikiProject Korea. This article is written in English, is not a candidate for speedy deletion (G1,G2,G3,G10,G11), and is not blank or has been blanked by its author. There is enough information to identify the subject in the article but the identify was not able to be confirmed using the sources. I thought that there might have been a copyright violation but found that the page had just copied this article https://wikimili.com/en/Keij%C5%8D_Imperial_University and https://smartfinance.suaramasa.com/host-https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choi_Jae-seo. I would take a look at the infobox and see if he should be changed from writer to academic but I would need to know more about the subject. There’s already a tag covering the style guidelines in the references. I would cross reference the article with the Korean Wikipedia (https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%B5%9C%EC%9E%AC%EC%84%9C) to see if the topic is at least similar and not being used to embarrass the subject of the article. If I can find a tag for checking sources or translating sources, I would use it but I can’t find one, it sounds like something that would exist but I can’t find anything. At this point if I was still invested, I would reach for outside help. I would not mark this as reviewed.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 00:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good decision - so would I. <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 💬 📧 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

4. Darby Harper Wants You to Know This article is written in English, is not a candidate for speedy deletion (G1,G2,G3,G10,G11), and is not blank or has been blanked by its author. There is enough information to identify the subject and the identify was able to be confirmed using the sources. This almost got nominated for deletion for violation the film SNG of not having articles for movies that have not started shooting yet but I was able to confirm they had started shooting. There is a copyright issue with the synopsis being taken from IMDB https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63580844. I think it can be salvaged so I would remove the text and add a copyright violation revision deletion tag. Although there are 5 sources there are really just two as sources 2-5 are just updates on the film from the same source and same authors. I would tag this article with a more references tag. After the copyright issue is taken care of I would make this article as reviewed.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 01:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Another 50-50 and I'm also of the mind that it's better to keep. <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 💬 📧 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

5. Jerry Lee Atwood

This article is written in English, is not a candidate for speedy deletion (G1,G2,G3,G10,G11), and is not blank or has been blanked by its author. There is enough information to identify the subject and the identify was able to be confirmed using the sources. The article is not blank, and the author has not blanked it in the past. There doesn’t not appear to be a copyright issues with the article. After reviewing the sources and the article I do not believe this article is notable. I would tag it for Proposed deletion because the article could become notable later but as of right now it is not. If someone were to object to that I would then open an AfD request, I would summarize the problems with the article. Most notability that this article reads a lot like an ad and there is no real indication that this person is important other than he was in a magazine once and some famous people liked his jackets.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 01:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Guess what happened today? See for yourself. <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 💬 📧 14:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey User:Atsme I'm finished with the articles you assigned me. A couple of them were kind of hard and one was a real pain. Let me know if there's anything you need from me or if I made some glaring mistake.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 01:30, 24 June 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.


 *  the course! breezed through this course like a veteran NPP reviewer.  To say I'm impressed would be an understatement.  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  💬 📧 14:44, 24 June 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.