User talk:Zippybonzo/Training/NPP/Synorem

 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!!

welcome to your training course! To start, can you watch the video about how to use the curation tool and familiarise yourself with the system and the queue, the interface has changed (slightly) since that video was made, but it's relatively similar. Once you're done, let me know here and we can work on the next sections. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 07:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yep, all done! Small comment on that system - why do reviewed pages stay on the list? In pending changes, once an edit is accepted/undone, it is cleared - is it not the same? Synorem (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Synorem, reviewed pages can be filtered out of the queue, they're kept in the queue for 30 days (afaik) before being cleared from the queue. When you're ready, can you write a reasonably sized summary (3-4 sentences) of the policies in the Notability (Pt. 1) section to demonstrate your understanding of the policies. I'll then review your summaries and then we can move onto the next section. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 19:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)
Notability


 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)


 * If a topic has gained interest, notability or otherwise coverage from public media/sources, it can be presumed to be a suitable article for creation. It is important that:
 * 'Presumed' is not definite - this alone should not mean a topic is suitable for creation.
 * It must have significant coverage, meaning it is addressed directly and not glossed over.
 * Reliable, verifiable sources must be included to evidence the article.


 * ✅ - good. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

Unlike General NGs, Specific NGs are, as the name implies, for specific topics or categories, i.e. for movies/history/geography, each will have their own guidelines for notability so that a standard is kept throughout the category. For example: in sports, articles about Boxers have a SNG of being "ranked in the world top ten of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, or The Ring magazine." otherwise it can be argued there is not enough coverage or general notability for the boxer to have their own article.


 * ✅ Nice. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Another SNG, specifically relating to organizations. Due to advertising & promotion issues, this is important as it sets a bar for what organizations deserve their own article. By default, it is stated that no organization - regardless of it's function - deserves an article. As per the phrase "Notability is inherited", unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it, having an article dedicated to an organization serves no purpose other than to promote it. An example of a organization that does not fit this criteria may be your local newsagent or convenience store, whereas organizations such as Amazon or the Blackrock do - as there is significant coverage and sources relating to these organizations.
 * ✅ - Perfect! Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:RS

While no source is ever completely trustworthy or untrustworthy, it falls on a spectrum. For a source to be considered 'reliable' and fit for use on a new article, it must be relevant to it's statement - i.e. "Crime has risen sharply in London" must link to a source that relates to crime within London, such as statistics. Age is also important - "Reoffending rates in London are very high" cannot be reliably sourced by an article published in the early 2000s. Finally, the source itself must be taken into account - "London currently has the highest crime rates in Europe" should not be sourced by The Onion, for example, for obvious reasons.


 * ✅ good way to explain it. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Assuming the article is appropriate for detailed review (i.e. it is not obvious vandalism, spam etc) then regarding relativity, it the category of the article should be checked with the list of SNGs, and if it fits one of the listed categories, ensure it fits the criteria. If it does not fit a SNG, compare it with the GNG - after which, it can be safe to assume the article is at least notable.
 * ✅ that's all good. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * when you're ready you can move to part two. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)
With all actions - edits, new page creations etc - assume at first they have positive intentions; be polite, respectful and understanding. If you're reverting an edit, or declining a new page, do not assume or judge them as if they're intentionally trying to lower the quality or standards of Wikipedia. Assume good faith in the user.
 * Assume good faith
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 15:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

For articles relating to living people, or those that've died recently, information must be accurate and unbiased. All information, such as a date of birth, career, criminal history etc. must be backed with sources - otherwise it can be argued that some of the information included may be a hoax, i.e. incorrectly stating a living person has been criminally convicted of assault.
 * Biographies of living people
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 15:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

If it is evident that a editor's beliefs, opinions, religion or otherwise affect their edits, it is a conflict of interest. For example; an Indian-based IP account, editing the successes/failures of the Indian Government - it can be argued there lies a conflict of interest unless their edits are reasonably justified, or specifically for undisclosed paid editting, if edits are made with the intent to promote a product, service etc - it can be argued that, because they have ties to said organisation/product etc, it will contain bias to some degree.
 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 15:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

If images or content violate the copyright of where it was obtained, it is strictly not permitted. This can include extracts from books or non-public research, or videos and images from movies etc.
 * Copyright
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 15:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to add anything that can be considered controversial or contentious, it is again, very important to add sources or to expand on your statements. Statements such as "This actor allergy abused their wife" or "There is a murderer on the loose at this location" without any sources, it is considered hoaxes and rumors, and is strongly discouraged for a plethora of different reasons.
 * Hoaxes
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 15:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Very simple - do not abuse, threaten, slander or generally abuse another editor/person. Articles which primary purpose is to insult or degrade someone is not permitted.
 * Attack pages
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 15:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

when you're ready, we can move onto part 3. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 15:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Every article has a 'talk' page - where users can discuss their changes, resolve any conflicts and reach consensus regarding edit differences, and other related conversation. Both this - and the creator's user talk page - can be used by patrollers like us to discuss any problems or improvements, leave any positive comments, and so forth. Discussion is important, as it encourages collaboration - a key element for Wikipedia creators.
 * Discussions with creators of new pages
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Template notifications vs manually notification/discussion
 * Template notifications can usually be misconceived as condescending, or passive-aggressive. See 'Don't template the regulars'. For users who get the basic understandings, and who are evidently :trying to build a better encyclopedia - manual discussion is preferable, whereas in more informal terms, templated notifications are for those quick 'hey, you did something wrong there, please address it' situations.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
 * Knowledge and tone is important when correcting, editing, or obviously when creating an article. Even if you don't know what the article is about - do your research elsewhere! Inform yourself, then others. Tone is an important :criteria, as it prevents yourself from sounding condescending, and instead, informative.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikilove/positive comments
 * To promote a civil and friendly environment, Wikilove (used by clicking the heart above any article) provides a creative way to thank of 'award' a user for their contributions, in the form of food, barnstars, simple friendly :comments, and so on. These can usually be found, and should be posted, on a user's own talk page. In the case of NPP, this is a useful way to encourage and motivate new creators/editors.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

With any form of patrolling (RCP, NPP and so on) warning templates are used - premade warnings varying in severity depending on what the user needs to be warned about. These can be used to remind contributors about errors they may have created in their edits.
 * Warning templates
 * ✅ all looks good here, you know the drill for part 4 :) Zippybonzo &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)
This is the general standard for requesting a deletion of an article. A discussion must follow after request to allow a consensus to be reached as to whether it should be deleted or not, in line with deletion policies.
 * Articles for Deletion
 * ✅ Zippybonzo (alt)&#124;  talk to me   &#124; they/them 11:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * BEFORE nominating
 * Before nominating an article for deletion, users must check:
 * It is permitted as per the deletion policies, which states valid grounds and possible alternatives to deletion.
 * If the article can be altered/improved to prevent deletion, it should not be a candidate for AfD.
 * If notability is the deletion grounds, search for additional sources rather than flagging the article for deletion.
 * The page must not already meet the criteria for speedy or proposed deletion.
 * ✅ yup, important to remember this, even I forget it sometimes. Zippybonzo (alt)&#124;  talk to me   &#124; they/them 11:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion is similar to AfD, but are reserved for less controversial page deletions. Unlike AfD, the article flagged for proposed deletion will be removed within 7 days if there are no objections raised. If there are objections raised, then it is transfered as an AfD.
 * PROD and BLPPROD
 * ✅ yep, can only be used on Articles. Zippybonzo (alt)&#124;  talk to me   &#124; they/them 11:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Soft deletes are applied after a deletion discussion, where little-to-no debate or discussion is contributed. The article will be hidden from public sight, but may still be restored for any reason - including on request. This is usually used in cases where a general consensus of whether or not to delete the article has not been reached.
 * WP:Soft delete
 * ✅ Zippybonzo (alt)&#124;  talk to me   &#124; they/them 11:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

In some cases, soft deletes can also apply to 'sister pages' - such as Wikimedia images. These will also be hidden from public sight, but can be restored upon objection.
 * WP:SOFTSP
 * ✅ Zippybonzo (alt)&#124;  talk to me   &#124; they/them 11:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

A more rapid deletion process, where the article is believed by the reviewer to be worthy of deletion beyond a reasonable doubt - and therefore skips the usual discussion that other requests for deletion may have. These are used in cases such as blatant vandalism, test/non-sensical articles, or copy-and-paste copyright issues; to name a few.
 * Speedy Deletion
 * ✅ lastly, part 5 and then live review time :) Zippybonzo (alt)&#124;  talk to me   &#124; they/them 11:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)
Wikipedia articles can have tags added as notes of what can be improved - such as ((more citations needed)). They let other editors, and in NPP's case - the page author know where the areas for improvement are. Some tags - such as claims of an article being biased or unneutral, must have justification as to why the tagger believes so.
 * Improvement Tagging
 * ✅ don’t forget about tag bombing. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 11:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Putting articles within categories allows viewers to easily find an article and similar ones that belong within the same group. It is seen as general article etiquette to put your article within a correct category of some sort.
 * Categorizing
 * ✅ good. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 11:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

could you let me know what times next week in UTC you are free for live reviews as they need to be done relatively quick as our reviewers might review them before we see them. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 11:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi there - I will be free this Monday & Tuesday coming, 9:00 to 17:00 UTC. Synorem (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Synorem hey, I managed to forget to check this page, but if you're free later this week I'm around pretty much every day from 17:30 to 22:00 so if you're free anytime then I'll be around to start the live reviews :) Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 12:32, 9 May 2024 (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.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

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

Tips & 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.