User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 7

User:Blaze Wolf
 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 curation tool video in the right margin, and also review 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. You cannot possibly over-ping me.

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:PAGs 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 so we can discuss your responses or any questions you may have 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. Oh, and here is a suggestion you should consider before you begin. At the bottom of this page is a tip section which is worth reviewing because there are some handy scripts you can add to your user common.js that may prove quite helpful for editing, and reviewing articles.

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 💬 📧 12:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused as to what I'm supposed to do for each section . Am I supposed to just read through the links provided and answer the occasional question or what? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - when you are in edit view for each section, there are hidden instructions for each. Please keep the formatting uniform because I will be commenting below your answers.  Atsme  💬 📧 15:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh ok! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok so for the instructions under the first bullet point, are those meant to be instructions for that section or am I supposed to write a 1-2 paragraph summary of WP:N itself. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ping in case you aren't notified here outside of pings. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , think of each ==main section== as the topic header, and each of the bullet points that follow as subsections that comprise the topic, which is where your summaries will go. However, if you want to include a brief topic summary (including all the subsections) under the main section, feel free to do so, but it is not required. Quick question...did you do the preliminary exercises relative to the charts, the video, etc. as instructed in my opening statements/introduction above? I want you to be very familiar with the charts, and overall process.   Atsme  💬 📧 19:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I watched the video and looked at the first chart but managed to completely miss the second one. Don't know how but I did, I'll take a look at the second one. The reason I'm confused is the bullet point for Notability under the section Notability has the instructions "Write a substantial 1 to 2 paragraph summary, or more if needed, in an effort to convince me that you indeed have a good understanding of the following bulleted topics in each subsection." which to me implies that's what is expected for the summaries of the other bullet points. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 19:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at the second flow chart and while it's a bit confusing I think I mostly understand it. However the instructions for the Notability bullet point still confuse me. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 13:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

, simply explain to me, in a few paragraphs, what you know about the guidelines in each subsection (under each bullet point). Please maintain the current formatting throughout as I will be adding comments after your summaries. I want you to convince me that you have a good understanding of those guidelines and what is or is not notable, why it is or isn't, etc. IOW, what is your takeaway after reading them? Sharing what you have gleaned from the guidelines demonstrates to me your potential to become an efficient NPP reviewer, and if you actually understand the guidelines as intended, and can make the determination if a topic is notable or not. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 13:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah alright. I think I understand now so I'll go ahead and read through them and leave my responses. If I miss something let me know. Sorry for the questions! ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 13:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You got off to a really good start with very good commentary about N. Go ahead and finish Pt 1, and start Pt 2. I will check back and review again...probably tomorrow. Oh, you don't ever have to apologize for asking me questions. I expect them. <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  💬 📧 00:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've finished part 1 and will start part 2 per what you said. I honestly find that the basic dictionary definitions of some of these words makes it easier to understand what its supposed to mean rather than trying to figure out what exactly Wikipedia says it means as most of the time they are very similar. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 15:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've finished part 2. My summaries of attack pages and hoaxes aren't very long because the pages detailing them aren't very long either. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 19:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Atsme! So part 3 is supposed to be relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading however no such section exists on the NPP page. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 13:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * –oops, I fixed the link. Good catch. As a reviewer, you should simply fix the link with an explanation in the edit summary. Tutors never let a good "oops" go to waste. 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  💬 📧 14:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ya normally I would however the section you changed the link to doesn't seem to mention "Discussions with creators or new pages" at all. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 14:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Day-em, I styled the wikilink incorrectly! Now fixed. <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 💬 📧 14:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the entire section. Related doesn't mention that either. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 14:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ping ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 14:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding the section Communications, which is directly related to communicating respectfully with others. WikiLove is communication as is the use of templates and noticeboards. Those related pages explain how to behave when communicating with others and how to use those sources of communication. Look at it again. Perhaps after you start the tutorial you will grasp the context. <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 💬 📧 14:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing I'm confused about is it gives me specific topics that don't seem to be mentioned at all in what you linked so I don't see how I"m supposed to provide a summary on them if there's nothing to summarize. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 15:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Read this explanatory essay, and see if it brings some clarity to 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 💬 📧 15:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That seems to refer to discussion in general. The problem I'm having is that the topics of "Template notifications vs manually notification/discussion; Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions; and Wikilove/positive comments" don't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the links provided so I can't exactly provide a summary for them (well, the second one might be I haven't looked close enough yet). ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 15:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , this entire tutorial deals with generalizations and summaries; i.e., an overview of what you take away from each topic, and how you apply critical thinking which is required as a new page patroller. Communication is an important part of becoming a reviewer. I don't want to reveal what I think you should take away from that exercise by telling you what you should write. I want to know what you take away from it - what you think about communication in general on WP, especially as it relates to the subsection titles in the exercise because it involves communication with new page creators, some of whom are not going to readily accept their article being draftified or nominated for deletion. You will be communicating with new page creators, and other editors who may disagree with your conclusions. If a dispute develops, I want to know what methods of communication you would choose and why. I just added a link to a section at NPP that recently added which inadvertently was done at the most appropriate time to help with this discussion, particularly the second paragraph. It may help clarify your confusion over Part 3 below. Read the 2 paragraphs Joe just added, and do the best you can with your responses 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  💬 📧 11:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright sounds good. Sorry for all the confusion, I'm just trying to go through this and things like this confuse me a bit. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 12:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would assume there's no issue with me pulling some information from other pages on Wikipedia? I don't see why there would be (In fact I think I technically did so earlier) but I just wanna make sure. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Use whatever you have at your disposal. The more you can demonstrate to me that you know about reviewing new pages, the better it is. I want you to exercise critical thinking, and if that means branching out, more power to you. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason I never saw this until just now, and I have this page watchlisted! Alright sounds good! I'll work on that. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 19:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So I'm a bit confused as to what it means by "Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions". I understand what the "Tone" part means, but I'm not sure what it means by "clarity and knowledge in discussions" ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 13:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , when you are communicating with the author of a new article, what do you perceive to be the role and importance of tone, clarity and knowledge in your communication? Is providing a clear response important? What is a clear response?  What level of knowledge do you have about the topic or what you are reviewing? Do you believe it is important to have some sense of knowledge about the topic of the article, and an in-depth understanding of the applicable WP:PAGs when you are responding to an author? Would you approach the author with demands, and warning tags or would you express yourself as someone who clearly presents the issues, is knowledgable about what you are presenting and are doing so with a friendly tone?  The only reason I am going into this much detail is because you pretty much addressed those points in your prior responses in 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  💬 📧 14:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah alright. I was simply unsure as to what they meant in the context I was given. I'll work on it now. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright I've finished part 3. I'll get to work on part 4 soon. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 19:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Question, for the CSD section do you want me to explain each CSD criteria or just the speedy deletion process in general? ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 14:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think, and want to express about the speedy process. You can mention pet peeves, words of caution, a past experience that raised question, what you like and/or dislike about it - in 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 💬 📧 15:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright sounds good. Just wanted to make sure. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 15:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've finished part 4. I'll get started on part 5 soon and will most likely finish it shortly after I start it. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 16:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright I've finished part 5. The summary of categories probably isn't very good since I've read the categorization page many times and still don't understand how categorization is supposed to work. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 16:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

 * Notability

The topic of notability in general is really dependent on the rest of the things in this section. However, notability as a whole is something that editors will often use to decide if a topic is suitable for an article. Webster's dictionary defines notable as meaning "worthy of note: remarkable" and one of the synonyms they list is "noteworthy" which to me describes the general concept of notability quite well even if it's not exactly what Wikipedia fully defines it as. In order for something to even begin to be notable according to Wikipedia's criteria, it has to be "worthy of note", meaning that it's something that is worthy of being noticed by others. Just because an article is notable by definition doesn't mean it's worthy of an article as there's also WP:NOT which can, in a sense, override a topic's notability due to the topic being unsuitable for an encyclopedia entry. Even if it doesn't go against WP:NOT it still might not be worthy of an article since it may be better suited as part of a pre-existing article.


 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)

The general notability guideline is usually the base for determining whether or not an article is notable, though there are some specific notability guidelines that override this one. The vast majority of topics must meet at least the GNG before any other SNGs are considered (with some exceptions as I just described). The very first sentence of GNG states this, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." To break this down, I'm going to go by the words that are italicized. First, is presumed. Wikipedia uses the legal definition of presumed which Webster's dictionary says that it means "to suppose to be true without proof" and in fact, if you scroll a little farther down, the dictionary highlights one of the key differences between presuming and assuming something, which is that presuming something is when you are making a guess based on reasonable evidence, while assuming something is when you are making a guess with little to no evidence, which brings me to my next point (or I guess 2 since this is a great segue to the topic after the next!). Significant coverage and reliable sources. Significant coverage means that the topic is discussed directly and in detail so OR isn't required, but that doesn't mean it has to be the main topic. Reliable sources play into the difference between presuming and assuming, in that reliable sources are secondary sources (which don't have to be online, though in the modern day that is preferable) which usually have enough editorial integrity for the information to be verifiable (usually meaning that the source has an editorial team and isn't known for making a lot of mistakes or just making stuff up). The sources also don't have to be written in English, though it is preferable that they are since this is the English Wikipedia and most people here only speak English. A source that is independent of the subject means that the source isn't directly connected to the subject of the article, whether that be a source written by them or someone who has a strong affiliation with them.


 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

Subject specific notability guidelines are notability guidelines that help clarify when an article on a specific topic is notable. They usually have the same criteria as GNG with additions relating to what is considered independent in relation to the subject. In addition SNGs can also help clarify when an article should and should not be create, such as in the case of the SNG regarding films. It provides guidance for when an article on a future film should be created based on various determining factors. However not all SNGs have to also pass GNG, such as in the case for the SNGs for academics and professors as well as geographic features, which the one for academics and professors specifically states that it's an alternative to GNG meaning that the subject has to pass either GNG or the SNG.
 * Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest
 * Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest

WP:ORG (because I don't wanna type out the full name) is an SNG relating to the notability of organizations and companies. It has the same criteria as GNG, however it specifically states that there is no inherent notability or inherited notability. While those may sound the same they are both different. Inherent notability basically means that the subject is notable just because it exists. Inherited notability means the subject is notable because another subject that is directly related to them is notable. It provides various examples of trivial coverage and also substantial coverage to aid users in figuring out what is and isn't trivial.
 * ✅ Really like your attention to spelling and semantics. As not typing out the full name, you're not alone! WP has acronyms for a reason. However, when working with newbies, I like to spell it out and add the acronym in parenthesis. :-) <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 💬 📧 11:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Video game notability

The notability for video games isn't a formal SNG due to it being from a Wikiproject, however it is still technically an SNG. It has the same basic criteria of GNG and it also details what is independent in regards to video games, while also noting that older or international releases will most likely not be easily available online. It also covers how awards and nominations should be determined for their notability as well as how the notability for a derivative game release should be determined with a chart that makes it easier to see what it is saying.
 * ✅ And if we're not careful, WP will be inundated with video games <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 💬 📧 11:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I consider a source reliable when they either have an about me page that states that they have been around for a while and states they have an editorial team, or the about me shows that people use them a lot as well as other sources confirm it and they have a page in which it shows who all is on their editorial team. Usually if it's a newspaper or website I've heard of before they are most likely reliable (with of course some exceptions such as CNET no longer being reliable due to the AI issues among other things). "Multiple" usually depends on the topic, however for me the baseline for multiple is 3 reliable sources (which, while that is an essay, usually the number 3 is the one used when determining notability). If you can provide me with at least 3 reliable sources then I will consider that the article has at least baseline notability.
 * WP:RS
 * ✅ Relative to RS in general, an entire book or chapter in a book distributed by a reputable publisher is also a good indication of WP:N. We also run into "notable" vs "popular", so what is the difference? We are often criticized for mentioning TV ratings (popularity of the show) which some claim are not good indicators of reliability, and I would agree depending on the content but the "most watched or most read" over long periods of time, such as the NYTimes, and various other news sources become popular sources for a reason, regardless of whether or not we are looking at them objectively. I tend to believe popularity is a sign of a product's reliability or it would not be popular; therefore, not notable, unless it is notable for being a disaster. More food for thought at Subjective importance. It wouldn't hurt to read that entire essay.  <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  💬 📧 11:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


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

Well first, before I even begin reviewing any of the content, I do a quick skim of the article to see how long it is (length isn't a criteria for notability, however it can be an indication as to whether or not it is notable), then I will see what sources are cited and how many. I have some userscripts installed that show me which sources are reliable and which are not by highlighting them in different colors (although one of them sometimes seems to just highlight whatever the hell it wants to sometimes) so I will use those to show me which of the sources might be helpful for determining notability. Next I will go through the article and see what the sources are attached to and if there are any large chunks of completely unsourced information (the exception would be the gameplay section of a video game which can use the game itself as the source and therefore does not require any actual sources per something I know there's something that says this but I can't find it right now ). If there are large chunks of unsourced information then I will most likely send it to draftspace or remove the information if the article is actually notable.
 * ✅ Beware of the scripts because WP's method of determining RS tends to be subjective. Pay closer attention to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Also good reading at User_talk:Atsme.
 * 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 💬 📧 11:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't even read your quote page. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 12:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

 * Assume good faith

Assume good faith is a principle that is important to editor retention and the entire project on Wikipedia (and is also a good principle to follow off of Wikipedia as well). Assuming good faith is when you assume that someone is attempting to be helpful even if they may not be unless there is clear evidence otherwise. An example would be if someone corrects a grammar mistake in a comment you post on a talk page. If you were to assume good faith you would either leave it be (if you don't mind people doing things like that) or to revert them and leave a note on their talk page stating that while some people might appreciate the grammar edit, the usual guideline is to not do that as they may not have been aware of the guideline. Assuming bad faith would be to revert them and tell them off for doing so telling them that they should not have done it, which can end up with that user leaving the project. This is also known as biting the newcomers, which is something seen as bad for the project.
 * ✅ And don't let it get to you if it turns out your good faith encouragement was feeding a troll, or encouraging a sock. It happens, so AGF but maintain a discreet level of caution because we are, after all, dealing with anonymity. <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 💬 📧 12:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Biographies of living people

The policy for biographies of living (or recently deceased people) is one of the stricter policies on Wikipedia due to the impact it has. It's one of the stricter policies due to them being about people that are real and are very much still alive and can read the article, and because they are notable they are most likely able to take legal action if they absolutely need to. Articles regarding BLPs must also take care to regard the privacy of the subject. Usually parts of a subject's personal information (such as their age, height, weight, etc.) aren't readily available or only appear in a small number of sources then they generally should not be included. Labeling people as things such as a "nazi" or other things should be avoided unless the subject is often described as such in multiple reliable sources (multiple in this case meaning much more than 3) such as in the article for Kanye West in which there are 2 reliable sources supporting that he described himself as a nazi in the lead, with an additional 3 sources later in the article where it states this. Verifiability is also much stricter in BLPs in which instead of material that could be potentially challenged being allowed to be discussed, the policy for BLP specifically states "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". With identity theft being a thing, the addition of personal info to a BLP is put to a much higher standard than simply being able to be verified by a reliable source, and it states that if a subject compalins about their birthdate that one should err on the side of caution and simply just include the year as long as there's a reliable source for it. Failure to follow this policy can often lead to a much quicker block because of how serious it is.
 * ✅ Beware the echo chamber and press releases. They have become very good at presenting a specific POV rather than objective news, so for contentious subjects, in-text attribution is a safe approach. As reviewers, we are also looking the neutrality of an article and if we see a lack of objectivity, or biased comments and/or opinion that is not properly sourced/attributed, we tag it. If it's blatant enough that we see it as libelous, we should remove it but never edit war over it. Remove and discuss, and you might ask for input from more seasoned reviewers to be on the safe side. <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 💬 📧 12:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)

A conflict of interest occurs when you have some sort of close connection to something in which you may not be able to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view guidelines. FOr example, I myself have a conflict of interest with the article Raising Cane's because I am currently an employee at one of their restaurants. This differs from undisclosed paid editing and paid editing in general. UPE is when you are being paid/compensated specifically for your contributions on Wikipedia and you do not disclose it in the required manner which will result in a block as doing so is a violation of the WMF Terms of Use (which, while most people don't read because who actually reads them I read it myself, has to be followed). This is different than simply being an employee at a company as if you are an employee of the company, while you are being paid, you are not being paid for the work you do on Wikipedia and are simply being paid for whatever work you do at the company. For example, John Doe is an employee at the Example Company. Their job is to make sure the shelves are stocked. In this case, John Doe simply has a COI with the article for Example Company as they are being paid to stock shelves and not edit Wikipedia (and in fact would most likely get fired if they were editing Wikipedia when they should be stocking shelves). In another example, Jane Doe is an employee at the Blank Company. Their job is to make sure the company's image looks good on all social media and to make sure the Wikipedia article is up to the company's standards (I don't actually know if it would specifically say that you are being paid to edit Wikipedia if you took a job that would result in you needing to disclose that you are being paid). In this case, Jane Doe has a COI and is being paid to edit the article on behalf of the company, so per the WMF Terms of Use they must disclose their employer, the client (the person on whose behalf they are being paid which sometimes is the same as their employer), and any other affiliation they may have. What they don't have to do is disclose how much they are being paid. While they can certainly do that (I think) that is not a requirement. If you have a COI or are being paid, this does not restrict you from editing the relevant articles, however it is strongly discouraged that you do so since you may have issues staying within a neutral point of view. Instead you should make an edit request on the talk page of the relevant article with the relevant template.
 * ✅ Objectivity in choosing sources is what accomplishes NPOV; however, it is a natural tendency for the average person to choose sources that align with their POV. Unfortunately, journalistic ethics have taken a serious turn in promotion of opinion journalism rather than reporting all significant views objectively so that readers can make their own decisions. They believe what they write despite it being biased opinion, and therein lies the problem. If you get time, read CJR's 4 Part review, and divorce yourself from your own political biases and assume a pragmatic approach. Simply replace the names in your head while reading, especially if the main characters make your blood curdle. That CJR exposé speaks volumes about the changing tide of journalism. I'm curious to see if AI is going to eliminate that trend, and to what degree some of these bots will replace human journalists and editors. <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 💬 📧 12:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no political biases because I hate politics :) ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 15:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Copyright

TL;DR Copyright is complicated because it involves the law, and the law is complicated. Ok on to my actual summary of the copyright policy. The copyright policy on Wikipedia is most likely the strictest policies on the platform because it involves things having to do with the law, and therefore failing to comply with this policy will quickly lead to a block. The specifics of what is and isn't copyrightable varies depending on the country (Commons covers this in more detail), however for me, where it is relevant, I will base it off the US Copyright Laws and I live in the US. The vast majority of Wikipedia's text is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (it is noted that 4.0 is incompatible) which means that you are allowed to reuse the content for anything as long as you provide attribution to it, and if you remix it in any way then you must release it under that same license. In terms of addition of things regarding copyright, if you add something that is copyrighted then it must either be in the public domain, or be released under a license compatible with Wikipedia. Failure to do so is a copyright violation in which the infringing content must be removed from the location it was added and then the revision deleted (hidden from public view) as a copyright violation. Anything you find on the internet is copyrighted and not usable on English Wikipedia (with some exceptions regarding Fair Use which I will get into) since everything is automatically copyrighted unless the copyright is explicitly stated otherwise. There is an exception to this, however. Normally, everything involving something having to do with the Wikimedia Foundation must make use of work that is free from copyright, however the licensing policy of the WMF lets individual projects (except for Wikimedia Commons which hosts most of the images used on enWiki) adopt an exemption doctrine policy which allows the use of non-free content. On enWiki this will usually be based on the US legal doctrine on fair use. Fair use was established as part of legal doctrine in the United States when Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976. What is defined as fair use is defined in which states the following: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections and, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:


 * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." Wikipedia puts these into a fair use criteria which are defined in WP:NFCCP.
 * ✅ Nice job! You would probably be a big help over at the copyvio desk, too!! <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 💬 📧 15:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hoaxes

A hoax is when you make up something that if fake and the get people to try and believe it is true. Hoaxes damage Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia since they trick the reader into believing deliberately false information which can lead to general misinformation. Sometimes it is done simply just to test how good we are at detecting and removing them (which you shouldn't do anyway and will lead you to get blocked). Deliberately creating hoax articles is considered vandalism, and obvious hoaxes will be deleted under G3 of the speedy deletion criteria. Some of the oldest hoaxes are listed at WP:HOAXLIST, however creating a hoax with the intent of getting it added to the list will lead to a block (notice a pattern?).
 * ✅ Some of the hoaxes appear to be genuine info, so if there is any doubt, it is always best to verify content to the cited sources. <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 💬 📧 15:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Attack pages

An attack page is any page that has the sole purpose of either threatening or depreciating/insulting the subject. While covering the bad things about a subject isn't completely disallowed, if an article only consists of that then it is considered an attack page. Biographical articles that are unsourced and entirely negative are also considered attack pages. When you delete an attack page, you should also blank it as a courtesy (see WP:CBLANK) as well as tag it with the CSD template for criteria G10.
 * ✅ We usually see these types of pages in contentious topic areas. <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 💬 📧 15:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pt 2 – Good job, !! Go ahead and finish the rest, and after I review them, we can start the live reviews. We will have to work live because our NPP reviewers are Johnny on the spot! I will choose articles for you to review, and you will need to be available to review them soon after I post them or we risk them being reviewed before you get the chance. <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 💬 📧 15:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

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


 * Discussions with creators of new pages

In general, discussing things with the creators of new pages is important to the NPP and even the AFC process as it can prevent confusion as to why things were done. For example, if a page was nominated for deletion because there isn't an indication of notability (A7/A9 I have no clue why those are separate criteria when they are essentially the same except for different topics) and there was no discussion, the creator may be confused as to why their article is being deleted because they might not understand what notability means. If the nominator discusses it with the creator then they may be able to reach an understanding as to why the deletion is happening.
 * ✅ In short...for reasons unbeknownst to me, consensus has lowered the bar for music. You may be able to gain some insight after reviewing the following AfD, which made such an impression on me that I will not review music-related topics: Articles for deletion/Exorcise Tape. It is ok to leave topics you are uncertain about or unfamiliar with for other reviews to handle. <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 💬 📧 11:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Template notifications vs manually notification/discussion


 * This is something that has been somewhat of a debate. Template notifications can sometimes make situations more heated than manually discussing things. The essay, Don't template the regulars, explains why this can happen. The essay states "Template warnings are very generic, and sometimes out of date. ... [T]hat templating at all – to regulars or newcomers – may be taken as rude by being impersonal (biting the newbies). No one likes to feel they are being bureaucratically processed. Templates cannot help but inherently convey that feeling." Basically, the issue with templated messages is that they all tend to say the exact same thing with some variation and can often feel like you're just a bot spouting some generic message. Giving a more personalized message that more clearly describes what you are trying to convey can end up being better than a template. That being said, one should always assume good faith even with templated messages. The same essay describes this in the section titled "Recipients should still assume good faith", stating "those who receive a template message should still assume good faith regarding the user of said template. The editor using the template may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not themselves consider the template use rude. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template. Alternatively, the editor using the template may have never read this essay, and they may not have considered whether placing templates on the talk pages of regular editors is problematic."
 * ✅ Well stated.
 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions


 * I'm gonna split this up between the three to make it easier, tho some of the things I Describe in one may apply to the other.


 * Tone: Your tone is very important when leaving messages as unlike real life, you can't easily show what your meaning behind a message is due to the lack of vocal inflections. For example, in real life if someone were to say "You don't get any help!" with a sarcastic tone then that's clearly intended as them being funny, rather than actual refusal to help, however on the internet if someone were to say the same thing, it could be interpreted as incredibly rude and unhelpful or defiant. While tone indicators have started to become more common, they should not be relied on to get the meaning of a message. Wording your message in a way that sounds more helpful or not attempting to use sarcasm can help prevent issues with tone.
 * ✅ Yep!


 * Clarity: Clarity is another way of saying how clear the point of the message or instruction is. For example, if someone were to describe how to operate a complicated machine then the clarity is very important. If they described it as "First you hiberjabber this wiremas and then you flurgle the nomult." (these words are completely made up to make the point I"m trying to make easier to understaond) then it would be hard for someone to operate the machine properly. If it were instead described as "First you flip this red lever and then you slowly pull the brown level back" then someone would be able to figure out how to operate it much easier. A good way to much sure the clarity of the message you are trying to send is as good as it can be is to assume someone is completely stupid (meaning they don't know anything about what you are trying to describe, not in a bad way) and explain it to them like they're five years old (in fact there's an entire subreddit dedicated to explaining complicated topics in a simpler way), that way you ensure there's as little confusion as possible.
 * ✅ Exactly!


 * Knowledge: Having knowledge of the thing you are attempting to describe or about the thing the discussion is about is very important. If you don't know anything about the thing the discussion is about you'll look like a fish out of water attempting to participate. It would be like asking an electrician to fix your plumbing. Sure you may be able to look professional, but you won't know a damn thing about what you are doing. Knowledge can help you describe something to someone much easier since you understand it and don't have to make guesses. Knowledge can also help with clarity since if you know more about a subject you can describe things about it a lot clearer.
 * ✅ Well put from the perspective of communicating with the author, especially considering reviewers make decisions that directly affect an author's work. From a slightly different perspective, if a reviewer does not have an acceptable level of knowledge about a topic, it is always best to recruit an expert or leave the article for another reviewer. For example, an article that contains complicated math formulas typically require an expert level of knowledge to make sure the formula is not a hoax or questionable WP:OR mixed in with reliable material, etc.
 * Wikilove/positive comments


 * WikiLove is both a general concept on Wikipedia as well as an official Mediawiki extension. The extension allows users to add templates to people's userpages to show appreciation or kindness towards them. There are many different templates it allows you to add, however the main ones that most people use it for are Barnstars. Barnstars are awards given to other users to recognize something that they have done, for example being a great admin. These, along with generally positive comments can help encourage new users to stick around and also can make them feel appreciated, since being a volunteer often means your contributions aren't noticed or openly appreciated.
 * ✅ Encouragement and kind words contribute to making Wikipedia a warm and welcoming environment which is essential to any volunteer effort.


 * Warning templates

Warning templates are one of the main tools of those involved in anti-vandalism efforts. Their purpose is to inform the user that there are issues with their contributions which usually have been reverted, and if they continue it may result in a block. Usually admins will look for 4 warnings given to a user before blocking them, though this is not a strict requirement and has exceptions. Additionally, some warning templates only have 1 level (usually either a level 1 or level 4 warning, depending on which one it is) to them as they are only intended to be given once. There are also some warning templates that have variations more suited for being given to newer users. Most anti-vandalism tools will allow the user to place a warning on someone's talk page, however if they misuse the warning templates they can be blocked.
 * ✅ Good summary, but keeping in mind that each case is different, try to get in the habit of weighing the benefits of a template vs manual communication with each case.
 * Pt. 3 - 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 💬 📧 12:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

 * Articles for Deletion

Articles for deletion is the place you send an article you hate to get deleted! ...Wait it's not!? In all seriousness, Articles for Deletion is a place you send an article to be discussed by the community on whether or not it should be deleted. There are many reasons why you would do this, but they usually have something to do with the articles notability. If you believe an article isn't notable and have put in the effort to look for sources then you should send it to AFD following the instructions on the page to nominate it (or just use Twinkle which can do it automatically as long as you fill everything in). Once you've nominated it people will discuss it and most of the time it will be closed after 7 days according to the consensus. However it won't always be closed after 7 days, it can be closed earlier or well after. It can be closed earlier if the article has a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted, which can be seen when a majority of users (who make policy based arguments) say the article should be kept. Another time it could be closed earlier would be if the nomination is malformed or of an invalid rationale, in which case it will be speedily kept (speedily keep? speedy kept?). There are other rationale as to why an AFD will be closed early with the rationale of speedy keep which are listed at WP:CSK. Yet another reason why a deletion discussion would be closed early would be if the article is suitable for deletion under one of the speedy deletion criteria. In this case the article will be nominated under the speedy deletion criteria (as long as it's valid) and deleted with the deletion discussion closed as "Speedy deleted under X#" with "X#" being the CSD it fit under. However, sometimes a deletion discussion may need to be extended past the 7 day mark which is called relisting. This can happen if either the consensus isn't clear (either an even amount of policy based !votes or different alternatives for deletion have been proposed) or there have been very little or no comments on the discussion (very little is usually only relisted if the article isn't able to be soft deleted because it was already PRODed). Usually a discussion should only be relisted twice (per what's described in WP:RELIST), and if it needs to be relisted more than that then the relisting user should give a reason in the relisting comment.
 * BEFORE nominating
 * BEFORE nominating


 * BEFORE lists some things you should do prior to nominating an article for deletion, though usually it simply refers to checking for reliable sources that show notability before nominating an article for deletion. If you believe an article is not notable the first thing you should do is check to see if there are enough reliable sources to show that the subject is notable. Usually you should make a good effort in doing so before nominating the article, and if someone else manages to find sources that may just mean they knew somewhere to find sources that you didn't (sometimes AFD is a good place to send an article to so it can be improved, however if you nominate an article solely for that reason you'll just be told that deletion is not cleanup). Sometimes sources for topics that would be in another language can be hard to find because there may be more sources in the articles native name (especially if it uses non-latin characters just as Japanese Kanji/Kana or Arabic script). If the article's native name is in shown in the article itself it can be a good idea to search for that as well. Sometimes some sources might not show depending on where you live (especially if you are in China) so other editors from other places may be able to find source that you simply cannot. There's also the case in which the search engine you are using doesn't show you all the sources, and sometimes the search engine may just bug out and say there are a lot of sources but when you go through the pages there suddenly are none (such as in the case of the deletion discussion for Eurogamer in which when you google it, on the first page it tells you there are millions of results, but when you go through the pages it suddenly seems like there are none).
 * ✅ You've got a good handle on what to look for, but also keep in mind that as a reviewer, you can also perform a bit of CE (last resort tagging), and if you find RS, to go ahead and include them. <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 💬 📧 17:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * PROD and BLPPROD

Proposed deletion and proposed deletion of BLPs are similar processes that bypass the need for a full deletion discussion. Despite being named similarly the context in which they would be added to an article are very different. For PROD, you should first perform a WP:BEFORE search similar to an AFD, then you can place the PROD template on the article you are proposing be deleted as long as it hasn't already been nominated for PROD before and that it hasn't already been discussed at AFD (regardless of the outcome of the AFD). If it fits both of these then the PROD template can be placed on the page and then after 7 days the article can be deleted. However if the PROD template is removed at all, regardless of reason, then the PROD is considered contested and has to go through the normal AFD process (Unless the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion most likely if the user blanks the entire article or the user is evading a block/ban). BLPPROD, while similar, is different from the PROD process. BLPPROD only applies to articles in which the subject of the article is a BLP, and there are no sources at all in the article regardless of reliability, so even if the article has a source to Wikipedia its ineligible for BLPPROD. However, once the BLPPROD template is added, unlike regular PROD it cannot be removed unless a reliable source is added. So if an article started with no sources and was nominated for BLPPROD and a source to Wikipedia was added, the BLPPROD is still valid because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This can be a bit confusing since the criteria for the addition of a BLPPROD being invalid is lower than the criteria for the removal of a BLPPROD. Unlike regular PROD, even if the BLPPROD template is removed it can still be nominated for regular PROD. Regarding undeletion, if an article was deleted via PROD then it may be requested that it be undeleted since the PROD is considered contested in that case even if the 7 day period has passed. With BLPPROD, if an article is deleted via this process then the editor should be prepared to add a reliable source if its undeleted. When its undeleted the BLPPROD template's timestamp will be reset, and if a reliable source isn't added within the timeframe then the article can be deleted again and may not be undeleted since there was a promise to add a reliable source which was broken.
 * ✅ PRODs may also trigger communication with the author who may not quite understand why their article was prodded. We got quite a few prods removed by the author, followed by doing nothing to fix the problem. At that point, you may consider starting a friendly discussion on the article TP (and ping the author). <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  💬 📧 17:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:Soft delete

Soft deletion is a process in which an article is deleted after a deletion discussion has received minimal participation. In this case the deletion discussion is treated as an expired PROD and may be undeleted by request similar to PROD.


 * WP:SOFTSP

This might not be nearly as accurate as the others as I rarely encounter cases in which a soft-redirect to a sister project is appropriate so even with reading the link I don't fully understand it.

A soft redirect is a type of redirect in which it does not divert you to the page it redirect to but instead keeps you on the redirect page with a link to the page it redirects to. On Wikipedia this is usually used to redirect the user to a relevant page on a sister project because the article itself may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia but it might be more appropriate for one of Wikipedia's sister projects (i.e. Wiktionary or Wikiquote). They are usually only created if the word or phrase is commonly wikified (I'm not entirely sure what this means in this context since the link doesn't exactly make it clear) or has been repeatedly been recreated. The benefits of soft-redirect are that it brings the sister projects closer together and minimizes further issues involving cleanup.
 * ✅ If it's clearly a definition, it should be deleted. It's rare, but it happens. <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 💬 📧 17:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy Deletion

Speedy deletion is a form of deletion in which the normal deletion process is completely bypassed and the article is deleted without any prior discussion. An article is only eligible for speedy deletion if it and its history falls under one of the 38 criteria (I think I counted that right?). These 38 criteria are divided into 6 categories based on the namespace they are in (with the exception of the General criteria which applies to all namespaces). Most of the criteria are based on the fact that the content is wholly unsuitable for an enyclopedia (despite this WP:NOT is not a valid criteria which I will go into a little later) and are almost guaranteed to not survive a deletion discussion. These can range from being complete nonsense, being created by a user evading their block/ban, to being deleted by the WMF as an office action (criteria G9, although I have never seen this used and don't think it should be valid for various reasons). When looking at some of the criteria, some of them seem to jump in what number they are. The reason for this is that some of the criteria have since been repealed or rendered obsolete, meaning they are no longer needed or no longer have any use. (rant starts here) Despite this, I believe that CSD has some flaws in what is considered eligible for deletion. First, I don't understand why WP:NOT, is an invalid reason for speedy deletion. It's an established policy, and if something violates WP:NOT it has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a deletion discussion. Just recently, I encountered (and rejected) a draft article called Draft:Lord Breadbear which is a fictitious story for a cult. I nominated for G3 initially which was declined since it was not attempting to pass as something that is real, and that being fictioious doesn't qualify for G3. In this case if WP:NOT were a valid deletion criteria then it could've been deleted per WP:1DAY, WP:NOTWEBHOST, or WP:FORUM. However because these aren't valid speedy deletion criteria, despite them being completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia, the draft has to go through the MFD process (not linking here to avoid canvassing). Another issue is the fact that G9 exists. G9 essentially means that if the WMF decides they don't want an article to be on Wikipedia then they can delete it without any further explanation as it is an "office action". While the office action's page's nutshell states "are taken to prevent legal trouble or personal harm" this is never made clear since all they have to say is "This was an office action" and no one questions it. To me I feel this gives the WMF too much power and allows them to bypass the community simply because they can essentially shut down the Wiki if they want to. My hate towards this may simply be due to the feeling that the WMF tends to act on their own accord without needing much explanation.(rant ends here)
 * ✅ I agree about the difficulties we encounter via Speedy; it can be very discouraging. I proposed giving qualified NPP reviewers the tools to delete, but my suggestion was rejected. Why even have qualified reviewers if they have no bite, and are forced to depend on potentially lesser qualified editors (or advocates, or UPE groups) to make the final decision? (My turn to rant) It goes back to "the hegemony of the asshole consensus" which is brilliantly explained in The Limits of Volunteerism, authored by one of our own admins. Deletion is the hardest part of NPP, but hopefully over time you will get used to the rejection. As for actions by WMF, I tend to have a bit more respect for the hand that feeds us, but that does not necessarily mean I agree with everything they do. I never expected the WMF to become social justice advocates, or educators of the world pushing a particular agenda. Granted, they have a vested interest and goals to accomplish – we, as anonymous volunteers, do not. We also do not have anything of material value to lose; everything else is pretty much lost to our own anonymity. Volunteers come and go, but the WMF remains, and they also take the brunt of any wrong/harm that may be caused by volunteers despite enjoying the rewards our volunteer labor has brought them. I simply don't expect the WMF to simply hand over everything they have built from the beginning and poured money into for 20+/- years to a fluctuating number of anonymous users that come and go like the wind. Believe me, I have pondered this situation for years. <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 💬 📧 21:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Pt. 4 - Good job, Blaze Wolf. Now the fun begins - live 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  💬 📧 21:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

 * Improvement Tagging

Tagging pages is a great way to get other editors to try and improve a page if you are unable to yourself. It can be used to highlight specific problems with the article such as not having enough citations or being written like an advertisement. They can be used in conjunction with each other to describe some of the problems in the article. However just because a tag may apply to an article doesn't mean it should be. Add a bunch of tags in the article for every single issue can be seen as tag bombing and overtagging which tends to be more disruptive than helpful. Instead you should tag the most important things first, and leave the others untagged. For example, if an article on a company has 1 source, is linked to from no where else, is an advertisement, and doesn't have a lead section, rather than adding a maintenance tag for all of these, instead you should add a tag for the single source and it being written like an advertisement as those are the most important things to be tagged. Twinkle is a great tool that makes it easy to add most of the maintenance tags you would ever need to put on the article.
 * ✅ And there is also WP:JUSTFIXIT <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, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Categorizing

Fair warning: No matter how many times I read this page I still find categorization confusing (probably why I usually don't categorize articles unless I know what categories belong on it)

Categories are a way of connecting different pages to other related ones through their defining characteristics. Usually if a category is in a subcategory of another category then it shouldn't be placed into the parent category. The categories that should be added are based on the defining characteristics of the article, usually something most reliable sources talk about. The image File:Category-diagram.png does a good job at showing how complicated and confusing categorization is. Uh.. other than this I'm not really able to say much more since I still don't understand categories no matter how much I read them. They're probably the most complicated and confusing thing about Wikipedia and often should just be left to more experienced users who know what they're doing.
 * ✅ I agree! Passed Pt. 5!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 21:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

NPP Exercise

 * , if you are ready to work straight through this exercise, let me know because when I pick the articles that need to be reviewed, you need to be ready to review them ASAP. Otherwise our trusty NPP reviewers will beat you to it, and I might run out of the kind of articles you need to review.  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  💬 📧 21:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright I should be ready. Depending on when you post them and when I'm on I might miss a few of them, but I"ll try and get to them as soon as I can. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 13:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Since we couldn't do it today it'll have to be on Sunday since I won't be available much of tomorrow. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 02:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Let the games begin!! Hope 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  💬 📧 17:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am indeed ready. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 17:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Or as Reggie would say, My body is ready. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 17:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

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 is sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, '' please do not hesitate to take action as you would normally do as a bona fide patroller. ''

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 it is crucial to begin your reviews as quickly as possible. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary - take action as you would if you were reviewing them for NPP.

1. Blythe Baird

For this article, I first looked at the sourcing (I will do this for all of the following articles). I already saw that it had maintenance tags on it so that wasn't something I could do. So after everything looked fine I added the relevant WikiProjects and moved on.
 * ✅ I'm giving this one to you because it's iffy, and I believe your decision was the right one for this situation. The log for this article shows it was deleted (prodded) back in 2013 by admin . It would not surprise me if this was an autobiography, or written by someone close to the subject (a college student) - it's fancruft in that regard because she is simply not notable enough for readers to care about her childhood. There is not enough information about her or her accomplishments to go beyond a short bio as far as her poetry goes. The sources are really iffy, so I added both the RS tag and N tag. There just isn't much beyond the popularity of her YouTube channel. <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 💬 📧 04:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

2. Garrett Wayne Smith

I took a look at the sourcing and then when I went back to the top, I noticed it was created by someone named "GarrettPlaysGuitar" which to me seems like the subject of the article, so I tagged it with the autobiography tag. I'm not entirely sure if this article should've been accepted. The reviewer is blocked as a sock and said it was borderline accept.

✅ Another good call. I cannot tell if you've been looking at the logs, but I highly recommend it before making any decisions. As a reviewer, the Curation Tool will bring everything you need to your finigertips to do a proper background check. Anyway, he's notable and has adequate RS that pass GNG. 3. Shiishongna

I looked at the sourcing and while at first it seemed fine, when I checked out the sources, they all seemed to fail WP:SIGCOV as most of them were just passing mentions of the tribe. So I draftified it and told the user that the main issue was SIGCOV.

✅ Another safe move in an iffy situation. I picked some toughies for you, and you have done quite well. In this case, I get to show you a few unexpected variables that a lot of reviewers don't have the time to research. See Paxauxa and this book which provides a lead we can follow: Shiishongna: The name of the city of Corona and/or a Tongva village. It was the largest of the 3 villages in that area, and it indicates to us that better historic references are available; see WP:NEXIST. Also read the following: WP:SNG ...the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. If you happen across a place that does not have "legal recognition", WP:GEOLAND suggests reviewing on a case by case basis, and resorting back to GNG. However, in this case, I'm of the mind there is legal recognition because Corona honored the Shiisonga-Tongva Nation, and they even have a legal document by the Corona City Council signed by the Mayor, dated July 2021. Therefore, in this case we go with Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. It takes a bit of digging and following leads, but again, reviewers don't always have the time. The onus was on the author to find legal recognition, but I just did that because I was curious. You can leave the article draftified, and ask the author to find a better RS that verifies legal recognition, or undraftify it, and cite the source I provided and be done with 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 💬 📧 04:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

4. Genuine Risk (film)

I wasn't sure on this one after I saw the sources were only reviews. So I asked on the Wikipedia Discord server if reviews are enough to establish notability for a film. I was told they are so I'm leaving it as is since there's not much more I can do with it.


 * ✅ This is one of those cases where WP is being used as a directory for non-notable films. Unfortunately, consensus typically votes to keep them. This one is a 2-star flop, does not pass the criteria for WP:NFILM but like we've had to deal with for a long time with sports articles, just showing up made them notable. Until there is an all out effort to stop this from happening, all you can do is tag it, which you did. <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 💬 📧 04:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

5. 2023 Bowdoin–Yarmouth shootings

I didn't look much further than the sourcing on this article since shootings tend to be extremely controversial and heavy subjects that I don't wish to get into arguments about.


 * - No problem. I will add 3 more 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 💬 📧 04:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You added these while I was asleep so they've been reviewed already, however I'll do my best with what I'm given. Also I completely forgot that I could look at the logs as I never think to do that. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 12:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , the only one reviewed is Jutrzenka (company), so you're good to go. I added another to replace of the reviewed article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 13:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh well alright then. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 13:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

6. Sebastien Summerfield

This article needs some serious work.. more than I'm willing to put in given my knowledge on football soccer. There are also some links that need disambiguating (I know there's a tool for that but I can't use it for personal reasons. The first source should be replaced since its soundcloud which isn't reliable, however the rest of the sources look good. i removed a completely unsourced statement in violation of WP:BLP. I also fixed the WIkiProject tags on the talk to remove an unrelated WIkiProject that is inactive. Otherwise everything else seemed... alright.
 * ✅ I went ahead and tagged it "lead too short" and included a brief message to the article creator that the leads needs to be a summary of key points, and to expand it beyond a single sentence. We not only review for N & GNG, we also look at MOS, content and context. <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 💬 📧 02:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

7. Joe H. Tonahill

This article seems fairly interesting. I feel the citations in the lead could probably be moved to somewhere in the body, however I don't know enough lawyer things. I added the WikiProject tags to the talk page and removed a source that didn't really do much for it. I checked the other sources to make sure they were good and they all seem fine other than the obituary which could be replaced with a better source, however for the purpose of the article and what is sourcing its fine.


 * ✅ This one is a stub, and I tagged it 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 💬 📧 02:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

8. Jutrzenka (company)

9. Nancy Utley

This article seems to use certain sources a lot, however I don't believe there's any specific issue with that so I can't really do much about that. I added Category:American film producers so it isn't uncategorized. I'm not entirely sure if the image is under the appropriate license as using TinEye, I'm able to see it pops up on a few different websites, however "filmindependent" goes to a 404 page, it doesn't appear on deadline, and it appears on Hollywood reporter but in a slideshow of different images so I'm not sure if that means they own the image or what. Otherwise it seems...mostly fine. She was the president of Searchlight Pictures but I"m not sure if that in itself means she's notable. The image is due to be deleted today as its been 7 days since its been uploaded (April 24) so I guess that's not too big of a concern. I just noticed that this article was created by a student editor. I'm actually fairly impressed by their work. It might need to be edited a little bit since student editors aren't nearly as good with these things as normal editors, but it's better than other student editor works I've seen. Taking a closer look at the article, her birth date and name were unsourced (her birth name was sourced to a weebly website) and the first paragraph of the early life section had a completely unreliable source so I just removed all of these things. If it were an official school website I would've given it a pass but it isn't so I got rid of it.
 * ✅ Ok - we're done here. <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 💬 📧 02:21, 3 May 2023 (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.

CONGRATULATIONS! You passed the course, and my evaluation follows below:

completed this NPP Tutorial and has demonstrated that he has a good understanding of Notability, and associated PAGs. I would like to see him focus a little more on MOS and tagging articles with one sentence leads, but that will come with practice and experience. He also demonstrated a good sense of responsibility by not reviewing a topic he knows little about, or was not comfortable reviewing. I recommend a trial period with the NPP rights so he can gain more hands-on experience as a 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 💬 📧 02:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Tips & scripts

 * User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool – it adds a small linked menu bar on the top right side of article pages as follows: [ History * Log * Filter * Talk Page * Notice * NPP Flowchart ]
 * User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft – important script that is used to WP:DRAFTIFY articles (move to draft space), including cleanup and author notification.
 * New pages patrol is the foundation on which we operate. Add the link to your bookmarks menu for easy access.
 * 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 somewhat 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.

NPP Forums

 * WT:New pages patrol/Reviewers
 * Discord - where the NPP team hangs out.

Userbox
This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

User:Illusion Flame
<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 curation tool video in the right margin, and also review 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. You cannot possibly over-ping me.

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:PAGs 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 so we can discuss your responses or any questions you may have 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. Oh, and here is a suggestion you should consider before you begin. At the bottom of this page is a tip section which is worth reviewing because there are some handy scripts you can add to your user common.js that may prove quite helpful for editing, and reviewing articles.

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 💬 📧 01:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * – go ahead and complete Pt 2 while I review your Pt 1 exercise tomorrow. Make sure you have studied the flow charts because you will need that information during the exercises. <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  💬 📧 02:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atsme ✅. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , go ahead and begin Pt 3. I just started reviewing Pt 2.  Based on your responses, it is quite obvious that your level of interpretation/perception/comprehension about our PAGs is quite high. I feel confident enough to green light you to start the next part after completing each one (at your own pace), but ping me after you complete each part so I won't get backlogged reviewing them.  When it comes time for the live exercises, it will be a little different pace.  I will choose new articles for you to review, but we need to be close in-sync regarding the time I add them and when you will be able to do the reviews.  We have NPP reviewers working the queue, and if we don't sync our timing, the articles I choose for you to review may get reviewed by someone else before you've had a chance to review them. <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  💬 📧 13:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atsme ✅! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

 * Notability
 * Our notability criteria is what we use to determine whether a subject is important enough for an article. We require that topics have received coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. To meet the criteria, a topic should have been the subject of multiple published works, such as books, newspapers, magazines, or reputable websites. Additionally, the coverage should be in-depth (not just mentions, basically) and substantial, demonstrating the topic's impact and significance. The notability guidelines help ensure that only notable subjects are included in Wikipedia, maintaining our standards of verifiability and reliable sourcing. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:36, 1 June 2023 (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 💬 📧


 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)


 * Our General notability guidelines (GNG) serve as a set of criteria used to determine whether a subject is notable enough to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. These guidelines state that for a subject to be considered notable, it should receive significant (not just small mentions) coverage in reliable(credible author), independent sources. These sources must be secondary sources, such as books, newspapers, or reputable websites, and should not be self-published or promotional in nature. This ensures our references, and article are neutral in tone and express all sides of a controversial idea or topic. So basically, if an actor, musician company, etc, is in multiple published, reliable sources, you are probably notable enough for an article. Though this is not a black and white system, as it may seem. AFD exists, after all. Pinging, as I am done with the notability section. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ You may encounter an article or stub that is historically notable, or it may be worthy of being noted but there simply aren't any sources about it online. There are other means of verification, keeping in mind that not everything in the world that is truly notable has received the coverage it deserves. Women in history; for example, a remarkable woman in a country of oppression. There may be an invention that received little attention but was the basis for an offshoot that did receive attention; i.e., worthy of being noted. See the banner at the top of the page. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 10:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)


 * Our Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG) are a set of criteria used to determine whether a topic is considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is in addition to the GNG. An article must meet GNG, and the specific notability guidelines for that topic area. We has established specific notability guidelines for various subjects, such as people, organizations, musicians, actors, and more. These guidelines provide additional criteria tailored to the nature of the subject. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ WP:NGEO articles can be tricky, especially natural features, and settlements. The latter can be taxing at times, especially if the article creator may have visited the area and was impressed by it, or it may be part of a family heritage, or where they grew up, etc. so it is important to carefully consider the nuances of WP:NPlace. You can always consult another NPP reviewer for a 2nd opinion. <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 💬 📧 10:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest


 * Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations and companies require that they meet certain criteria to be considered notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Here is a summary of the key points:


 * Significant coverage: An organization or company must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish its notability. These sources can include books, newspapers, magazines, journals, and reputable websites.


 * Multiple sources: The coverage should come from multiple sources, not just one, demonstrating that the organization has gained attention and interest from a variety of perspectives.


 * Reliable sources: The sources should be reliable and have a reputation for accuracy. Primary sources, promotional material, and self-published sources are generally not considered reliable.


 * Independent sources: The sources should be independent of the organization or company being discussed. They should provide a neutral and unbiased perspective on the subject.


 * Coverage of significance: The coverage should go beyond routine announcements or little mentions. It should provide substantial information about the organization's history, activities, achievements, and impact.


 * I feel that these guidelines are subject to interpretation, which is why AFD exists, and not every organization or company will meet the notability requirements. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good job. We don't want the encyclopedia to become a directory for every garage start-up in existence. Having said that, a business can be small with a high notability factor, or "uniqueness", but the bar for including companies/organizations is pretty high. <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  💬 📧 10:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:RS
 * Multiple sources depends on the context of the article. Sources should support statements made by the article. For example, the article Gianantonio Da Re is very short, and therefore doesn’t have as many statements that need references/citations. France, on the other hand, is a very long page that needs many citations to support its many claims and statements.


 * Reliable sources must meet the following criteria:


 * Be published by a reputable author/publisher online or written format
 * Be neutral and describe multiple points of view, if applicable
 * Be secondary
 * Be authored by persons unrelated to the article’s subject - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Also keep in mind WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and WP:NEXIST <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 💬 📧 10:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


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


 * My first steps would be checking to see if the article meets any of our general speedy deletion criteria. This would be a promotional article, vandalism, test page, not in English, etc. If it does meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, I would tag it with the appropriate deletion tag and move to the next article. If not, I would folow these steps:
 * 1) Check if there is actually content in the article and if the subject can be identified.
 * 2) Use the copy vio tool to determine if the content was taken from an external site. If there is (and no content worth saving) CSD.
 * 3) Thoroughly review the article to see if it meets GNG. If it clearly doesn’t, I would tag it for A7 deletion.
 * 4) Check for appropriate references and external links. If not, depending on the article, draftify, prod, or CSD.
 * 5) Use SNG to determine if the specific topic subject is notable.
 * 6) Double check there are no duplicate articles.
 * 7) Once I have determined the topic meets GNG (SNG, if there is one) and taken the appropriate action (CSD,RFD,PROD), I will tag the article for any issues I see. This may include uncategorized, issues with sourcing, stub, requested move.

If we get through all that and the article passes, I would review it. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ In your first step, try a little different approach by first approaching it with an inclusionist mindset, then switch to deletionist and see which argument holds up the best. The topic may well be notable but was just presented poorly. As a NPP reviewer, you will have the option to draftify poorly written articles, or take a minute to fix it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧
 * 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 💬 📧 11:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

 * Assume good faith


 * Our "assume good faith" policy is a principle that encourages editors to assume that other contributors are acting in good faith and with positive intentions, even if their edits or actions may seem misguided or incorrect. The policy emphasizes the importance of assuming that editors are trying to improve the encyclopedia, rather than assuming malicious intent. The policy acknowledges that misunderstandings and disagreements may arise while editing, but it encourages editors to approach such situations with a presumption of good faith. By assuming good faith, editors are expected to assume that others are making well-intentioned efforts to improve articles and to seek productive ways to resolve conflicts. I find it necessary to remember that assuming good faith does not mean turning a blind eye to problematic behavior or overlooking deliberate vandalism. It simply means giving others the benefit of the doubt until evidence suggests otherwise. Editors are still encouraged to provide constructive criticism and engage in respectful discussions. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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 💬 📧 13:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Biographies of living people


 * Our Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy is designed to ensure the fair and responsible treatment of living individuals on Wikipedia. It sets guidelines for creating biographical articles that prioritize accuracy, neutrality, and verifiably. The policy requires exceptional care when writing about living people. It emphasizes the use of many reliable sources to support any claims, particularly for potentially controversial or harmful information. Libelous statements or unverified claims that could harm someone's reputation are to be avoided. The BLP policy mandates the proper sourcing and referencing of information in biographies of living persons. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ If you come across a BLP that reads like an attack page - G10 it...however, if rejected, you might encounter some static from the author, especially if the BLP is involved in a contentious topic area, like politics. First, check the sources: WP:Red flag exceptional claims require exceptional sources. You can tag it or, and also consider AfD. You can also consult with other experienced 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  💬 📧 14:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)


 * Our Conflict of Interest (COI) policy trys to maintain the neutrality and reliability of Wikipedia by addressing situations where editors may have personal or financial interests that could influence their contributions. The COI policy encourages transparency, disclosure, and the prioritization of reliable sources and independent viewpoints. The key points of the Conflict of Interest policy are as follows:


 * Disclosure: Editors are expected to openly disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their contributions. This includes situations where editors have personal, financial, or other vested interests in the subject matter of the article.


 * Editing with a COI: Editors who have a conflict of interest are generally discouraged from directly editing articles related to their interests. This is to prevent biased or promotional content from being introduced. Instead, editors are encouraged to suggest changes or provide information on the article's talk page, where other editors can review and potentially incorporate the information.


 * Paid contributions: The policy strongly discourages editors from making edits in exchange for financial compensation, particularly when those edits are intended to promote specific products, services, or individuals. Paid editors are expected to disclose their affiliation and avoid directly editing articles related to their clients or employers.


 * Reliable sources: Editors are encouraged to base their contributions on reliable sources rather than personal opinions or promotional material. Independent, verifiable sources are essential to ensure the accuracy, credibility, and neutrality of Wikipedia's content.


 * Neutrality: All Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, presenting information in a balanced and unbiased manner. Editors with a conflict of interest should strive to maintain this neutrality and avoid pushing their own agendas or promoting specific interests. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Your options are to tag it, and pinpoint the problems by using either section or inline tags. If you have time, you can also fix it, remove any peacock terms, and/or tone it down. <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 💬 📧 14:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Copyright


 * Our copyright policy attempts to ensure that all content added to Wikipedia complies with copyright laws and respects the rights of authors. The policy requires contributors to provide content that is either in the public domain, appropriately licensed, or constitutes fair use. Wikipedia contributors are expected to write original content or make contributions that do not infringe on the copyrights of others. This means that they should not copy and paste text from copyrighted sources without permission, including books, websites, or other copyrighted materials.(You can find this using the copy vio tool) If this does happen, the pages should be speedy deleted, assuming there is no usable content left. Wikipedia strongly encourages its users to provide proper citations and references for the information they add, as this helps to verify the accuracy and reliability of the content. It also helps prevent copyright violations by acknowledging the original source. Wikipedia operates under various licenses, including the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3 (CC BY-SA) license. This license allows users to freely distribute and modify the content, as long as they attribute the original authors and share their derivative works under the same license. We take copyright violations seriously and block/warn users to address such issues. If copyrighted content is identified on the platform without proper permission or attribution, it may be subject to deletion or revision to comply with copyright laws. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ It is second nature for me to run an Earwig test, but NPP has the curation tool and the advantage of a pre-checked queue that lists potential issues for reviewers to verify such as copyvio, blocked user creation, etc. Also see Copyright problems for your options. <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 💬 📧 14:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hoaxes


 * Hoax pages on Wikipedia are articles (or other pages) that contain deliberately false or misleading information, created with the intention to deceive readers. These pages are strictly against our policies and guidelines, as we attempt to provide accurate and reliable information to our users. Wikipedia relies on verifiable and trustworthy sources to ensure the information presented in articles is factual. Hoax pages typically violate the principles of notability, as they often focus on non-existent or non-notable subjects. Wikipedia takes hoaxes seriously and imposes disciplinary actions on editors who engage in hoaxing, ranging from warnings to blocks. The aim of Wikipedia is to maintain the integrity and credibility of its content, and hoax pages undermine this goal. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:12, 3 June 2023 (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 💬 📧


 * Attack pages


 * Our policy on attack pages aims to ensure the neutrality, accuracy, and reliability of information on the platform. The policy discourages/prohibits the creation of pages solely intended to attack or defame individuals, groups, or organizations. Instead, we encourages editors to focus on providing balanced, verifiable, and encyclopedic content. According to the policy, attack pages are articles or content that use derogatory language, make unverified or unsupported claims, or violate Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons (BLP). Attack pages may target individuals, groups, companies, or any other entities. Wikipedia's policy on attack pages outlines several key principles:


 * Neutral point of view: All content on Wikipedia should be written from a neutral standpoint, presenting different perspectives fairly and without bias.


 * Verifiability: Information included in articles, including any claims or statements made, should be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Editors are encouraged to cite sources to back up the information they add.


 * Reliable sources: We rely on trustworthy sources to ensure the accuracy and credibility of its content. Reliable sources may include reputable news outlets, academic publications, books, or reliable sites.


 * No original research: Wikipedia does not allow the inclusion of personal opinions, original research, or unsourced claims. Editors should base their contributions on existing reliable sources.


 * Biographies of living persons: Special care is taken when creating or editing articles about living individuals. The policy emphasizes the need for information to be accurate, well-sourced, and written with a neutral tone, in order to avoid potential harm or defamation.


 * If an attack page is found, it may be CSDed using the db-attack template,or editors may work to improve the content by removing the attack-oriented language and adding reliable sources to support the information. The goal is to maintain an informative environment while upholding the principles of neutrality, verifiability, and accuracy. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I already commented about it above.
 * 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 💬 📧 14:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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


 * Discussions with creators of new pages
 * When engaging in discussions with page creators as a New Page Patroller on Wikipedia, I think it is important to maintain a collaborative and constructive approach. Here are some key points I find important:


 * Assume good faith: I would start the conversation with a positive and respectful mindset. Also, I would assume that the page creator has good intentions and genuinely wants to contribute to Wikipedia, even if the page may have issues.


 * Be polite and respectful: Use a friendly and professional tone throughout the discussion. While it may be obvious, it is important to treat the page creator with courtesy and avoid using aggressive or confrontational language.


 * Explain the concerns: I would clearly and concisely outline the specific issues or concerns I have identified with the page. I would also provide detailed explanations and references to Wikipedia policies or guidelines that support my points.


 * Offer guidance and suggestions: Instead of solely pointing out problems, I would offer guidance and suggestions to help the page creator improve the article. I would also provide specific examples or resources they can consult to make the necessary revisions.


 * Provide constructive feedback: I would focus on constructive criticism rather than personal attacks. Highlight the strengths of the article and acknowledge any positive aspects before discussing areas that need improvement.


 * Offer assistance and resources: I would offer my assistance in improving the article or direct the page creator to relevant resources, WikiProjects, or experienced editors who can provide further guidance.


 * Be patient and understanding: We need to recognize that the page creator may be new to Wikipedia or may have a shallow understanding of our policies. NPPs need to be patient and understanding, allowing for a learning process and the possibility of mistakes.


 * Follow up and show appreciation: After the discussion (or if the page is simply really good), I would thank the page creator for their engagement and effort. I would probably use the Wikilove feature in the curation toolbar.


 * We must remember that the goal of discussions with page creators is to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles while fostering a positive and collaborative editing environment. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ ✅ Really well put. Had to come back up here and add 2 more - you earned them. <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 💬 📧 03:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Template notifications vs manually notification/discussion


 * As a new page patroller, there are two different methods of notifying or discussing issues related to articles with article creators: template notifications and manual notifications/discussions. Here's a summary of the key differences between these approaches:


 * Template Notifications:
 * Templates are pre-defined messages that can be easily added to talk pages or user talk pages. They provide a standardized and efficient way to communicate common issues or concerns. Template notifications are often used to address issues like copyright violations, notability concerns, or content that requires improvement. They can be inserted using a simple code or by using the Twinkle or RedWarn tools. Template notifications are usually concise and straightforward, conveying the specific problem and suggesting potential solutions or actions.


 * Manual Notifications/Discussions:
 * Manual notifications involve personally written messages that you create and post on the relevant talk pages or user talk pages. This method allows for more personalized communication and the ability to address specific aspects of an article. Manual notifications can be beneficial when dealing with complex or unique issues that may not fit into pre-defined templates. They provide an opportunity for more detailed explanations, suggestions, or requests for collaboration. Manual discussions often involve engaging in back-and-forth conversations with other editors to resolve concerns or clarify points.


 * It's important to consider the context and nature of the issue at hand when deciding whether to use template notifications or engage in manual notifications/discussions. Some situations may call for a quick and standardized approach, while others may require a more tailored and interactive communication method. Ultimately, both methods serve the purpose of communication to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅✅ Very 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 💬 📧 02:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
 * For New Page Patrollers to engage in constructive discussions with article creators, the effective use of tone, clarity, and knowledge are required. These elements play a crucial role in creating a productive and respectful environment while ensuring the accuracy and quality of newly created articles.


 * Tone: Maintaining a polite and constructive tone is vital when communicating with article creators. Using a respectful approach helps to establish a positive rapport and encourages open discussion. It is important to avoid being overly critical or confrontational, as this can discourage effective communication and discourage article creators from actively participating in discussions or creating further articles.


 * Clarity: Clear communication is essential in discussions with article creators. It is important to articulate your thoughts and suggestions in a concise and understandable manner. I recommend to avoid using jargon or complex language that might confuse the article creator. You must clearly express any concerns or points of improvement while providing specific examples and suggestions to guide them towards making the necessary revisions.


 * Knowledge: Demonstrating expertise and knowledge in the subject matter helps build credibility as a New Page Patroller. It is important to have a solid understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. By leveraging this knowledge, you can provide accurate feedback and guide the article creator towards aligning their content with Wikipedias's standards and policies. Offering insights, clarifications, and references to relevant resources can further strengthen your position and assist the article creator in improving their article.


 * Overall, by employing an appropriate tone, communicating clearly, and showcasing knowledge, NPPs can effectively engage with article creators effectively. This approach encourages meaningful discussions and helps ensure the accuracy and quality of newly created articles. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Impressive!! <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 💬 📧 02:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikilove/positive comments


 * As a New Page Patroller, one aspect of the role is to provide feedback and guidance to new contributors. While the primary focus may be on identifying and addressing issues in new articles, it is also important to acknowledge and encourage positive contributions. Wikilove and positive comments play a significant role in this. Here's a summary of their importance:


 * Wikilove:
 * Wikilove is a feature on Wikipedia that allows users to express appreciation and gratitude to others for their contributions. It provides a way to recognize the efforts of new contributors who have made valuable additions or improvements to articles. Sending Wikilove messages can help create a welcoming and supportive environment. It encourages new contributors to continue their participation and engagement on Wikipedia, boosting their confidence and motivation. Sadly, many users create one article or make a few edits and leave Wikipedia. This should hopefully help improve editor retention.


 * Positive Comments:
 * As a New Page Patroller, leaving positive comments on talk pages or user talk pages can be highly beneficial. Positive comments acknowledge the efforts of contributors and highlight their strengths or achievements. They serve as a form of encouragement, motivating new contributors to continue their work and make further contributions. Positive feedback can also help build relationships and rapport with new editors, fostering a sense of belonging within the Wikipedia community. By providing constructive and uplifting comments, NPPs contribute to a positive and supportive atmosphere, promoting collaboration and growth.


 * NPPs must remember, while it's crucial to address any issues or concerns you come across as a New Page Patroller, recognizing and appreciating positive contributions is equally important. By using Wikilove and leaving positive comments, you contribute to creating a welcoming and encouraging environment that encourages new contributors to become long-term valuable members of the Wikipedia community. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅✅ Excellent responses. If you turn-out to be half of what you're representing in your responses, you are definitely a positive for this entire project. <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 💬 📧 03:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Warning templates
 * New page reviewers may encounter situations where they need to communicate concerns or issues to contributors whose articles do not meet the site's guidelines. Warning templates provide a standardized and efficient way to convey these concerns. Warning templates are used to notify contributors about specific issues or violations in their articles. They serve as a formal communication tool, alerting contributors to areas that need improvement or actions that must be taken. Warning templates aim to educate and guide contributors, helping them understand the site's policies and guidelines. They are pre-defined messages that cover a range of concerns such as copyright violations, notability, neutrality, or formatting problems. These templates ensure that the same message is conveyed to different contributors in a clear and concise manner. Warning templates can be inserted into the talk pages or user talk pages of contributors. They often include a brief explanation of the issue, relevant policies or guidelines, and suggestions on how to rectify the problem. Some templates may escalate in severity if the issue persists or if previous warnings have been disregarded. It's important to use warning templates carefully and consider the context of each article. While they are intended to address issues and guide contributors, it's essential to maintain a respectful and helpful tone in your communications. Many times, a personalized message is best. WP:DTTR explains this further. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Well done!  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  💬 📧 03:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

 * Articles for Deletion
 * Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion (AFD) process is a way for the community to discuss and decide whether to delete or keep articles on Wikipedia. Here's a summary of how the AFD process works:


 * Nomination: Any Wikipedia user can nominate an article for deletion by creating an AFD discussion page.(Twinkle can help when nominating) The nomination should provide a clear rationale for deletion, citing relevant policies or guidelines.


 * Discussion: Once an article is nominated, a discussion takes place on the AFD page. Users can express their opinions on whether the article should be deleted or kept. They can provide arguments, evidence, and references to support their position.


 * Duration: Typically, an AFD discussion lasts for seven days, although the duration can be extended if needed by relisting up to 3 times. During this time, anyone can participate in the discussion and share their views. Common !votes include keep, delete, redirect, merge, speedy keep, speedy delete, or draftify.


 * Deletion policy: The decision on whether to delete or keep an article is based on Wikipedia's deletion policy. This policy outlines specific criteria for deletion, such as lack of notability or violation of other content policies.


 * Consensus: Consensus is the primary goal of the AFD process. Editors engage in discussions, present their arguments, and try to reach a consensus on the article's fate. Consensus is determined by evaluating the strength and quality of arguments presented.


 * Closing the discussion: At the end of the AFD period, an administrator (or an editor with the appropriate permissions) reviews the discussion and determines the outcome based on community consensus. The decision can be to delete the article, keep it, merge it with another article, or take other appropriate actions. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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 💬 📧 22:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * BEFORE nominating
 * Before nominating an article for deletion (AFD), it’s important to follow a few steps to ensure that the deletion discussion runs smoothly and doesn’t occur unnecessarily. Here is a brief summary of what I think the most important things to do are before nominating at AFD.
 * The first thing you must do before nominating is be sure you understand policies related to article content and deletion. You should have a thorough understanding of deletion procedures so you don’t waste the communities time with an AFD on something that could have been CSDed or PRODed. You should be familiar with policies like WP:RS and WP:GNG to be able to determine if an article should actually be deleted. WP:NOT and WP:V would also be relevant, but more so the other 2. You should also read the subject specific notability policy for the type of subject in the article you will be AFDing if notability is a concern. TLDR:Be familiar with policies before jumping into nominating AFDs.
 * Secondly, you need to perform a few checks before starting an AFD to alleviate some of the concerns above. You should make sure the article couldn’t just be PRODed or CSDed. You should check the article’s editing history to be sure there isn’t a better version to revert to. Additionally, you should attempt to find reliable sources for the article if notability is a reason for deletion. Lastly, you should ensure that you give ample time since previous AFD noms. There are a few other minor checks, but these are the main, important ones.
 * Next, we need to make sure that if the article can be improved, it’s improved and not deleted. Deletion is not cleanup tells more about this, and I suggest all AFD noms and !voters read it. Basically, if an article can be improved without using administrator tools, it shouldn’t be deleted. Another option is adding maintenance tags like advert or Notability. It’s also important to give ample time since a page has been created before AFDing to allow the creator to expand and fix the page. The above maintenance tags can help highlight for the author what needs improvement. Another thing that AFD noms and voters should know is that delete and keep arnt the only options. Sometimes, a redirect, merge or draftify are more appropriate.
 * If notability is a problem with the article, as I said above in the improvement section, you should look to see if more sources exist. If you find many, add them and improve the article so deletion is no longer needed. If they don’t exist, and after completing these checks you still think it should be AFDed, then create the discussion page, I like to use Twinkle for this. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Just want to add that before you commit to the argument that "sources don't exist" based only on a Google search, we have WP:TWL, and if relative, we also have this amazing library, and this 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 💬 📧 22:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia Library won’t work for me because my account is less than 6 months old. :( - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * PROD and BLPPROD


 * The Proposed Deletion (PROD) process is a uncontroversial method for suggesting the deletion of an article that does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion but still may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Here is a summary of the PROD deletion process:


 * PROD nomination: A Wikipedia editor who believes an article should be deleted can place a PROD tag at the top of the article page. This tag notifies other editors and administrators that the article has been proposed for deletion.
 * Notification period: Once the PROD tag is added, a notification period of seven days begins. During this time, the article remains visible to the public, allowing other editors to review the PROD nomination.
 * Contesting the PROD: Any editor who disagrees with the PROD nomination can remove the tag and improve the article to address the concerns raised. They can also discuss the nomination on the article's talk page.
 * Removal of PROD: If the PROD tag is removed, the deletion nomination is canceled, and the article is no longer considered for deletion through the PROD process. A disputed PROD sometimes turns into an AFD discussion.
 * Deletion after the notification period: If no one contests the PROD nomination within the seven-day period, and the PROD tag remains on the article, an administrator may delete the article. The deletion is typically carried out to maintain the quality and relevance of Wikipedia's content if the page doesn’t meet the CSD criteria.
 * ✅ <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 💬 📧
 * BLPPROD is an uncontroversial method of deletion were an article about a living person with no references can be deleted after 7 days of no tag removal, similar to the above. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:Soft delete
 * This one is pretty simple, so it won’t take as long to discuss, given what I have already shared about AFD above. Atsme, if you think further explanation is needed, (I can’t really think of what else to say), just let me know.
 * ✅ Yep. <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 💬 📧
 * Soft deletion is when an administrator deletes an article following an AFD discussion with small participation. An example of this would be only one user participating (and !voting delete) after a few relists. Basically, if an article is soft deleted, any editor can ask for the article’s content to be restored by asking the deleting admin or on WP:RFU. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:13, 5 June 2023 (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 💬 📧


 * WP:SOFTSP


 * This, like soft deletion above, is also fairly simple to explain and understand. I don’t really know what else to say, but if you don’t feel I understand it well enough, we can talk further.


 * Soft redirects to other WikiMedia projects are appropriate when the content currently on Wikipedia would be more appropriate on another WikiMedia site. This might include Wikitonary, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, etc. For example, if a page is simply a dictionary definition, then a redirect to the same page on Wikitonary might be a good idea. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Don't be shy about redirecting them. We don't want WP to turn into a dictionary. <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 💬 📧


 * Speedy Deletion


 * Our speedy deletion criteria are a set of guidelines that allow for the quick deletion of certain types of pages or content from Wikipedia. These criteria are designed to address specific situations where deletion is considered necessary and uncontroversial. Here is a few common speedy deletion criteria with explanation:
 * Complete vandalism pages. Pretty self-explanatory. Administrators may delete pages that are only vandalism and have no good past revisions. Vandalism can include excessive profanity or something rude like “Jake sucks”.
 * Copyright violations. Also pretty self explanatory. Articles that are directly copied from external cites without permission must be deleted.
 * Person/web content/animal lacks importance. If an article clearly fails GNG, usually by containing no citations, and is clearly not important enough for an article, it may be CSDed. Alternatively, AFD can be considered for more complicated cases.
 * Article is promotional. If an article or page reads like an advertisement for a company, group, or organization, it is likely unfit for an article and should be deleted.


 * There are many more criteria, like user request in own userspace, blank articles, and specific deletion reasons for files, redirects, and categories. The above lists a few main/common criteria. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:38, 5 June 2023 (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  💬 📧 22:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

 * Improvement Tagging


 * Tagging pages for problems or cleanup is an essential practice that helps identify and address issues with articles. These tags serve as markers for editors to recognize specific problems and take appropriate action. Here's a summary of how and why pages should be tagged for problems/cleanup:


 * Identifying issues: Editors may come across articles with various problems, such as inadequate sourcing, biased content, grammatical errors, or lack of neutrality. Recognizing these issues is the first step towards improving the quality of the article.


 * Selecting appropriate tags: There are a wide range of tags that can be used to label articles with specific problems. Wikipedians should choose tags that accurately describe the issue they have identified. For instance, tags like "Unreferenced," "Cleanup," "POV," or "Copy edit" can indicate the respective problem areas.


 * Placing tags on articles: Once an appropriate tag has been selected, it should be placed at the top of the article, within template. The Twinkle tool can help with this. This helps ensure the tag is clearly visible and easily accessible to other editors and readers.


 * Communicating the problem: In addition to tagging the article, editors should also provide a brief explanation of the problem on the article's talk page. This allows other editors to understand the issue and collaborate on finding solutions.


 * Encouraging improvement: Tagging articles for problems or cleanup serves as a call to action for the Wikipedia community. It notifies other editors that the article needs attention and encourages them to contribute their expertise to improve the article's quality. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and anyone can participate in addressing the identified problems. Editors are encouraged to work together to resolve the issues and improve the article.


 * Regular review and removal: Once the problems have been addressed, editors can remove the tags. However, it is essential to verify that the issues have been adequately resolved before removing the tags. This helps maintain the quality of Wikipedia's content.


 * In summary, tagging pages for problems/cleanup on Wikipedia is a crucial process that helps identify and address issues with articles. It facilitates collaboration among editors, encourages improvement, and ensures the continuous quality control of the Wikipedia’s content. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ You know your stuff! <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 💬 📧 22:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Categorizing


 * Categorization is the process of organizing articles, and other pages, into groups based on similarities between the articles. This can be similarities in the subject of the article (example: Living people), size of the article (example: stub), or a category can simply be a maintenance category (example: Requests for unblock). There are also subcategories for more specific things in a particular area (example: Lists of living people is a subcategory of Living people). - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Aren't categories fun?!! SMirC-facepalm.svg
 * 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  💬 📧 22:12, 6 June 2023 (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 is sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, '' please do not hesitate to take action as you would normally do as a bona fide patroller. ''

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 it is crucial to begin your reviews as quickly as possible. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary - take action as you would if you were reviewing them for NPP.


 * , I am in CDT so I'm thinking to start this exercise tomorrow morning at 9:00 am. Does that work for you? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 22:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This will work for me. I am pretty busy, so I may be inactive for a few minutes (not more than ~5) occasionally. I will see you then. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * - I'm 30 minutes early, but if you're free, give it a go. <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 💬 📧 13:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

1. 746 BC
 * ✅ and redirected back to 740s BC. The page was not only lacking in information, it was completely unsourced. I feel that this can eventually become an article, but it need improvement in the draft space first. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:40, 7 June 2023 (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  💬 📧 15:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

2. Gordon Bennett (comics)
 * ✅. The article already has appropriate no sources tag, but I did add one about sections. There is currently a merge discussion ongoing about merging this articles contents with another and redirecting. I wouldn’t patrol until that discussion is finished, and because there are no sources cited. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ... but adding: I did not see an open discussion about Gordon Bennett (comics) in the tagged discussion. I did find 3 instances of Gordon Bennett in List of Beano comic strips. Ok...so what reason has this article survived all these years without a single cited source? Looking at the edit history, I see a page move and default dab on 11-21-2008 for the name Gordon Bennett (character) to the List of Beano comic strips. Is the character notable enough for a standalone? I think not. Consider the work it created over the years. Most recently, a redirect was reverted by a user who apparently oversees the Beano comic strip characters. The reason to redirect is technically much stronger than the reason given for reverting; i.e. we redirect  or delete unsourced, non-notable comic book characters that did not receive enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article. As one editor put it, it's fan cruft. As for your decision, it was a safe one which is perfectly acceptable, especially when first starting out. It is good to discuss these types of articles at NPP (or Discord) for input. A bolder move would be to redirect but based on the edit history, it will probably be reverted by the same editor who reverted it 3 days ago, keeping in mind that each time a redirect is reverted, the article ends up in the NPP queue as a new article. Someone needs to take the initiative to end the back and forth once and for all, so it would be wise to open a redirect discussion on the article TP after you get input from other NPP 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  💬 📧 15:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, thanks! I joined the NPP discord, so I will be able to ask for help there. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

3. Pancreas (song)


 * ✅. I have added some tags. One about the lead section being too short, and the other about needing a few more sources. I think the article is good enough not to draftify, so I just tagged it for improvement. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * but better to be on the safe side. Let's examine the article log which tells us it was prodded back in 2007. See WP:NSONG, which tells us the article is borderline...iffy...will likely pass because fans will show-up at AfD? I have discovered that it is quite difficult to get so much as a garage band deleted, so...a safe decision is, well...safe. <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  💬 📧 16:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. As you have probably seen, I tend to stick on the safe side. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

4. Lourdes Leon
 * ✅. The sources appear to be more than just passing mentions and appear to be fairly reliable. There are some concerns because notability isn’t inherited, but there is enough coverage, in my eyes, to establish notability as a model and not just inherited notability. This is a tough one though and could go both ways, so I would probably ask another NPP before patrolling. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, BUT...she passes GNG, it's not inherited, and it's probably not short term, either. <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 💬 📧 17:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

5. Indraja Shankar


 * Another tough one here. The article doesn’t meet WP:GNG in its current state, but it already has the notability tags on it. I would probably ask another NPP for their opinion on it and give the creator some more time to improve before taking a deletion action. If improved, I would patrol. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: After consulting with another NP who agreed that it was tough but thought it was probably patrollable, I would patrol it. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, BUT...all of the articles I gave you were tough ones, and you handled it well. BTW, we use the term reviewers per the actual right granted at PERM. A new page reviewer has access to certain tools as stated in the first part of this tutorial. It is also a granted user right in addition to other user rights, such as autopatrolled and pending changes reviewer.  We currently have approx 717 New Page Reviewers, making the total with this permission 1,614 (the remaining being 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  💬 📧
 * the Exercise portion and ready to go! <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 💬 📧 17:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, have I finished NPP school? Should I go ahead and request New page reviewer rights? Your opinions would be appreciated. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Illusion Flame, yes you have, IMO you should probably get it for a trial to let you get the hang of it first. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 19:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, is NPP keeping you busy? <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, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atsme, Yes, I take it you are quite busy teaching all the budding reviewers. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 05:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, . Few things in life are more satisfying than seeing my new grads set out on their own to tackle their new task as reviewers, but with a gleam of confidence and a better understanding of what they've gotten themselves into. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 10:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Atsme below seemed to think I didn’t need a trial period, but we will see what the admins think. I plan to post a request soon. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , trial periods work for editors who are not sure if they want to be a reviewer, and/or for editors who struggled through the tutorial or got stumped doing the reviews. You don't fit in any of those categories. I gave you 5 pretty tough reviews for a beginner and you passed each one. Experience = a bit more confidence in your choices but nothing is ever for certain in these types of situations. You have the ability, and if I thought for one minute you needed a trial period, I would have recommended it. The admins read my evaluations when making their decisions, so good luck with whatever you decide!  <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, 7 June 2023 (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 review: CONGRATULATIONS' on passing this course. You are now eligible to receive the NPP Reviewer rights. You worked well throughout this tutorial, and know what is expected of a good reviewer. I don't think you need a trial period because you adequately demonstrated responsibility and caution, as well as good ole' common sense – the perfect combination. 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 💬 📧 17:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Tips & scripts

 * User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool – it adds a small linked menu bar on the top right side of article pages as follows: [ History * Log * Filter * Talk Page * Notice * NPP Flowchart ]
 * User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft – important script that is used to WP:DRAFTIFY articles (move to draft space), including cleanup and author notification.
 * New pages patrol is the foundation on which we operate. Add the link to your bookmarks menu for easy access.
 * 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 somewhat 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.

NPP Forums

 * WT:New pages patrol/Reviewers
 * Discord - where the NPP team hangs out.

Userbox
This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.