Jump to content

User:Isochrone/NPP School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome Berrely. We will use this space to do our NPP work; I recommend you put it on your watchlist (I have done so already). I will normally try and put assignments in bold though follow-up question will just use normal Wikipedia conversation methods. Let me know at any point if you have questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Getting Started

[edit]

The first thing is to read, really read, WP:NPP and then let me know what you think are the two or three parts of that you feel your skills are the strongest and two or three where you could still grow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I just had a thorough read of WP:NPP, and I'm a little embarrassed I didn't earlier. I'm quite strong with COIs, sourcing issues and categorising, but I often make mistakes with CSD and PROD, drafts and sometimes misdetermine the notability of subjects. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk to me∕What have I been doing 18:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
COI is an important element of NPP. And the good news is that if you can identify reliable sourcing you're in good shape. Much of notability is just about counting reliable sources. Well maybe it's a little more complex than that but sources really are at the heart of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Drafts

[edit]

We'll start by doing some practical work with articles submitted through the Articles for Creation process. For each draft below say what you would have done if you had found these while doing New Page Patrol (there are a few differences in practice between AfC and NPP - for this assignment pretend they are not drafts but are instead in article space). This will give me a sense of your thinking and approach. From here (or perhaps after another set or two) we'll go to some focused generic exercises. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer

[edit]
So I specialize in book content so I was pleased to see this. The two quotes featured are promotional quotes and so don't help establish notability. My research also didn't turn up any promising reviews so if this were at NPP I would nominate for AfD. Your steps are all good though, especially around citations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Draft:Peter Barton Lacrosse Stadium - Add infobox, add appropriate stub template, add More Citations tag, correct errors that break WP:MOS, add Lead Rewrite tag as the lead gives information that cannot be found elsewhere in the article, add WikiProject Sport to talk page, fix citations and find others online, mark as reviewed
I couldn't find sources suggesting this was notable. Did you find something else? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Quite a few universities have played there like the University of Denver Athletics, and has been recognized by the Men's Collegiate Lacrosse Association. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕Contribs 08:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
That isn't really what conveys notability but it's the right kind of thinking to be doing so well done for this point in our work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Draft:QA Info Tech - N/A as draft has been deleted.
  • Draft:Pablo Sinues - Generally an OK article, alias would be placed in bold, weird clump of citations should be spread out for appropriate sections that require them, not sure if it is as stub or start but I would say stub as it only has two sections. Get rid of the section with whole award and merge it with Academic Activity fix categories. There seems to be a lot of information in the article not easily researchable, so perhaps the main contributor has a relationship and/or is the person they are writing about, suggesting COI, mark as reviewed.
Good point about the COI. I don't generally enjoy reviewing academics because there are some specialized tools that I don't have access to and specialized knowledge which I have to work hard to access. So honestly at NPP I probably skip over. I included it in our work because I wanted one BLP and because I was hopeful it would be an easy decline. Anyhow I have accepted it but am curious what another reviewer will say. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice job with this first assignment. I can see you making good use of the flowchart. New assignment to come soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, claims made in articles should be supported by independent (secondary), reliable sources for verification. Please read WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:RSP, WP:V, WP:PROVEIT, WP:Primary, WP:Secondary, and WP:Tertiary. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Source Evaluations

[edit]

In the tables below, please indicate "y" for yes or "n" for no after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n" for each source. Hopefully this will be right up your alley. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania (1937)

Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 – April 9, 1959) was an American architect, interior designer, writer, and educator. Wright believed in designing structures that were in harmony with humanity and its environment, a philosophy he called organic architecture. His creative period spanned more than 70 years. He works includes The Guggenheim, swirling, snail-shaped museum in the middle of Manhattan.[1][2] Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture."[3] This is one of Wright's most famous private residences (completed 1937), was built for Mr. and Mrs. Edgar J. Kaufmann, Sr., at Mill Run, Pennsylvania. Constructed over a 30-foot waterfall, it was designed according to Wright's desire to place the occupants close to the natural surroundings. The house was intended to be more of a family getaway, rather than a live-in home.[4]


Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://nypost.com/2017/06/07/frank-lloyd-wright-was-a-house-builder-and-homewrecker/ Yes The source is major newspaper Yes The source is reputable published source Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://franklloydwright.org/work/ No The source is the person's own website No The source is likely biased towards the person they are talking about Yes It describes Frank Lloyds work thoroughly in detail ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302053743/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm Yes The source is published by a major news company, Bloomberg L.P. Yes The source is a reputable published source Yes The source describes the subject thoroughly in detail ✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC No The source is a biography of a person No The source is likely biased towards the subject Yes The source is a book describing the subject's life thoroughly and in detail ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ Hoffman, Barbara (2017-06-07). "Famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright had a dark side". New York Post. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  2. ^ "Frank Lloyd Wright's Work". Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  3. ^ "BW Online | July 28, 2004 | Frank Lloyd Wright: America's Architect". 2008-03-02. Archived from the original on 2008-03-02. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  4. ^ Robert C. Twombly (24 April 1987). Frank Lloyd Wright: His Life and His Architecture. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-85797-6.
One useful resource when looking at sources is WP:RSP which summarizes sources that have been talked about a lot. Some reliable sources are not included but it's a good starting point. So for the NY Post good analysis for independence and sigcov but is less clear when it comes to reliable. You'd need to be ready to make a case for this particular article.
Good on the foundation
Yes to business week
Books can be great resources. An autobiography would fail independence but a regular biography would not. Twombly wrote about many architechts so on the whole this is probably OK for all three categories.
Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


Jordan Lennon (born February 22, 2000), is a British film producer and actor. [1] Lennon is currently a member of BAFTA.[2] He continues to work aside 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros, Wicked Wales, Capture Studios, Cineworld, Paramount Pictures, and Rockefeller Foundation.[3]

At age 16, the Vice President of 20th Century Fox, Paul Higginson. Who previously worked on Star Wars, Titanic, and Independence Day took on Jordan and Rowan Snow as a mentor.[4] In December 2018, Jordan and Rowan finished British Film Academy.[5] Jordan lived in Skelmersdale for 10 years before moving to Rhyl, North Wales. He's currently writing 'Stranger in the Night' scrreenplay for Warner Brothers.


Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8902348/ No The source can be edited by anyone No The source has no information supporting it No The source only shows the subject's films and has plaguarised text from the subject's Wikipedia page ✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales No The source is on the website of a film organisation the subject is part of No The source is likely biased towards the subject No The source is not solely about the subject and mostly about the film organisation he belongs to ✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125 No The source is the subject's resume No The source can only be edited by the subject Yes (Though it is unavailable, I assume) The source is to help the subject with employment, so it will likely have thorough details for the employer ✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/ Yes The source is a website to reveal voice actors behind cartoons No The source has no statements supporting any of its info so it may be incorrect No The source only has the birth date and place of the subject ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ "Jordan D. Lennon". IMDb. Retrieved 2019-01-21.
  2. ^ "BAFTA Cymru". www.bafta.org. 2014-06-16. Retrieved 2019-01-21.
  3. ^ Lennon, Jordan. "LinkedIn Account". LinkedIn. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
  4. ^ "Jordan David - 2 Character Images". Behind The Voice Actors. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  5. ^ "BFI Film Academy". Tape Community Music & Film. 2016-08-24. Retrieved 2019-01-21.
Yes to imdb
BAFTA is probably reliable in certain ways but is certainly not a good source for the reasons you said here.
Linked-in probably isn't even sigcov as resumes generally don't count there.
Yes to behind the voices.


Sonny Bill Williams 2010

Sonny William Williams (born 3 August 1985), who is a Muslim[1], is a New Zealand All blacks rugby union footballer,[2] Williams was a Marist Saints junior when he was spotted playing in Auckland by Bulldogs talent scout John Ackland.[3] In 2002 he was offered a contract and moved to Sydney (as the youngest player to ever sign with an NRL club) to play in the Bulldogs' junior grades.[4]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7505117/2019-Rugby-World-Cup-Sonny-Bill-Williams-expecting-fourth-child.html Yes The source is a privately owned newspaper No The source is a tabloid magazine and its main stories feature rumours and scandals (it is also a banned source) Yes The source goes into detail about the subject ✘ No
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108 No The source is the website of the team the subject plays for No The source is likely biased towards the subject Yes The source thoroughly goes into detail about the subject ✘ No
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308 Yes The source is a privately owned publication by NZME Publishing No The source is from a less established outlet, and, per WP:NEWSORG this means that it is considered less reliable than bigger ones like the BBC Yes The source answers questions about the subjects life, as well as explaining who he is and going into detail about him ✘ No
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html Yes The source is from a privately owned news organisation Yes The source is from a reputable news outlet, but it's over 15 years old, so it may not be as reputable now Yes The source goes into thorough detail about its subject ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ "2019 Rugby World Cup: Sonny Bill Williams is expecting a fourth child". Mail Online. 2019-09-25. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  2. ^ "Stats | allblacks.com". stats.allblacks.com. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  3. ^ Rattue, Chris (2 September 2006). "Jerome Ropati – Miracle in the making". New Zealand Herald. APN Holdings. Retrieved 10 October 2010.
  4. ^ "The King, Sonny and heir". Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax. 2 October 2004. Retrieved 12 November 2011.
Excellent with daily mail
The all blacks is not independent. It would be reliable for certain kinds of information but certainly not this.
The New Zealand Herald is 150+ years old and has a large circulation for New Zealand. There are no real indications I can see htat it's not reliable. However, it's not really sigcov. The interview is not with Williams, it is with a different player who mentions Sonny. And that brief mention is not enough by most definitions to count as sigcov.
Yes to Sydney Herald.



David Petraeus

David Howell Petraeus AO (/pɪˈtreɪ.əs/; born November 7, 1952) is a retired United States Army general and public official. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011,[1] until his resignation on November 9, 2012[2] after his affair with Paula Broadwell was reported.[3]

Petraeus was born in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, the son of Sixtus Petraeus (1915–2008),[4] a sea captain from Franeker, Netherlands.[5]


In 2003, Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the fall of Baghdad[6][7]


Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/ Yes The source is major newspaper Yes The source is reputable published source Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch Yes The source is a major news organisation Yes The source is a reputable published source No The source is a video that only shows the subject becoming CIA director, it does not go into context about who he is directly ✘ No
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893 Yes The source is major newspaper Yes The source is reputable published source Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012 Yes The source is a privately owned website No The source has no confirmation at all about its facts and doesn't show any proof of these facts being real Yes The source discusses the subject(s father) directly and in detail ✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005 Yes The source is a major news organisation Yes The source is reputable published source Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html Yes The source is reputable published source Yes The source is reputable published source Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html Yes The source is a major news outlet Yes The source is reputable published source Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ "Petraeus sworn in as CIA director". CNN. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  2. ^ Johnson, Kevin (November 9, 2012). "David Petraeus resigns from CIA". USA Today. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
  3. ^ "Petraeus Shocked By Girlfriend's Emails". HuffPost. 2012-11-12. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  4. ^ "Sixtus Petraeus". geni.com.
  5. ^ "David Petraeus' Winning Streak". Vanity Fair. March 30, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  6. ^ "beyond baghdad". www.pbs.org. 2004-02-12. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  7. ^ "David Petraeus: General Surge". The Independent. 2007-09-08. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
Yes to USA Today, CNN, and HuffPo
Things can be a private website and still not independent. The idea here is independent from the topic being covered. So Geni is independent but not quite for the reason you said.
Yes to Vanity Fair
The PBS interview is an example of something not being independent. An interview lacks that independence and so does not qualify towards a source being GNG even though it is otherwise reliable.
Yes to the Independent

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)



Martina Hingis is a Swiss former professional tennis player.[1] She won five Grand Slam singles titles.[2] Hingis was one of the highest-paid female athletes in 2000.[3] She retired in November 2007 after being hampered by a hip injury for several months and testing positive for a metabolite of cocaine during that year's Wimbledon Championships,[4] which led to a two-year suspension from the sport.[5]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.instagram.com/martinahingis80/ No The source is a private Instagram profile for the subject No The source is almost definitely biased towards the subject No The source simply shows photos of the subject, not any useful information ✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-us-open-hingis-20170910-story.html Yes The source is a major news outlet Yes The source is reputable published source Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=4x3fQ920EUMC&pg=PA197&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Yes The source is an independently published book Yes The source says the magazine and the date of the award, allowing people to backreference the source to find the award No The source doesn't talk directly about the subject, but the award ✘ No
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/21171438/tennis-another-twist-bizarre-career-martina-hingis Yes The source is a major news outlet Yes The source is reputable published source Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/nov/01/tennis Yes The source is a major news outlet Yes The source is reputable published source Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ "Martina Hingis (@martinahingis80) • Instagram photos and videos". www.instagram.com. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  2. ^ "Martina Hingis wins her 25th Grand Slam championship, the women's doubles crown at the U.S. Open". Los Angeles Times. 2017-09-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  3. ^ Paul Fein (30 January 2003). Tennis Confidential: Today's Greatest Players, Matches, and Controversies. Potomac Books, Inc. pp. 197–. ISBN 978-1-57488-526-2.
  4. ^ "Done again? Why Martina Hingis decided to retire for a third time". ESPN.com. 2017-10-26. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  5. ^ Staff; agencies (2007-11-01). "Tennis: Martina Hingis retires amid cocaine controversy". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
Instagram is not reliable partly because anyone can edit it. In this case Hingis herself.
Yes to LA Times
The book is actually not SIGCOV. Inclusion in a list does not normally count as such coverage.
Yes to ESPN and the Guaridan.

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Berrely: see my comments above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, I've read through them! What should I do now? — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 16:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Questions

[edit]

Berrely thanks for confirming that you've read them. Now that we've covered sources, can you apply your knowledge of GNG and SNGs? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Question 8

For each of the above subjects assessed in the previous section, please identify whether they meet notability guidelines (and how/why), based solely on the sources included on this page (i.e. don't go looking for more sources).

  1. Frank Lloyd Wright  Yes: Business Week is a reputable source and having significant coverage from them shows that some notability, and having a biography written about them by a reasonably well-known author also demonstrates notability.
  2. Jordan Lennon  No: None of the sources show any significant coverage and almost all of them are primary sources, except for a voice acting website, which the notability for is questionable (there is also a different name).
  3. Sonny Bill Williams  Yes: Daily Mail and All Blacks both can't demonstrate notability, and there was no significant coverage from the NZH. But the Sydney Morning is a well known and trusted source, and this is a thorough analysis, demonstrating notability.
  4. David Petraeus  Yes: Honestly, being an ex-director of the CIA demonstrates notability on its own, but based on the sources, significant coverage from USA Today, HuffPost, Vanity and Independent all demonstrate notability, all being well-known news organisations.
  5. Martina Hingis  Yes: 3/5 of the sources demonstrate sigcov and are mentioned by reliable news sources like ESPN and the Guardian.
@Berrely: It seems like you're using GNG for all of these? Is that right? If so please take another look WP:GNG as I think you'll need to adjust some of your analysis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Question 9

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

  • The reason we have to verify claims is that, if we don't, anyone can then add anything they want. To add something you should need evidence, and while most people edit in good faith and are right, we can't just have random people adding random stuff.
checkY Yes. We have Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Question 10

Could we cite Wikipedia as a source? and why?

  • You could not cite Wikipedia as a source because Wikipedia relies on citations. If you were to cite another Wikipedia article's claim that was backed up by a reference, Wikipedia is effectively the middle man, we should use the reference directly, instead of citing Wikipedia itself.
Kind of but not really. Take a look at WP:V and see where Wikipedia comes up short. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Question 11

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

  • An interview with the company they work for. While it is likely reliable, it is not independent as it likely has biased views towards the subject.
checkY That's always the example I use too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


Question 12

Give an example of a source that is an independent source but not reliable and explain why. A tabloid newspaper like The Daily Mail. While it is independent, most of the content inside relies on rumours and unverified information

checkY Good example and analysis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Berrely: checking in on Q9-12. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:  Done — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 10:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Berrely: feedback and follow-ups above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Subject-specific notability guidelines

[edit]

@Berrely: let's go from your good work with the GNG to another kind of notability - subject-specific notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC) 1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines) into the following three categories

2. Virtually all SNGs that provide additional notability criteria specify that these criteria may indicate that the subject meets notability guidelines. How would you interpret this caveat as a new page reviewer?

1:

2. I assume by the word "may", the guidelines reference that the guidelines are suggestive, not prescriptive. Whilst they should generally followed, in the case an extremely specific example comes up that is not covered by the guidelines, editors may vote on a consensus to help suggest what should happen.

This is mostly spot on. The idea behind many SNGs is to not have the same argument over and over again at AfD. However, there are times where we might presume notability but someone, and that could be a NPP, does indepth research and discovers that the coverage we're assuming to be there isn't actually there. It happens far less frequently the other way around (though there are areas reflected in WP:OUTCOMES where we have defacto SNGs). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Barkeep49 — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Berrely see feedback above. In particular the NCORP piece is important so let me know if you have questions or want to discuss further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Scenarios

[edit]

For scenarios 1-6 review just based on "subject notability guidelines" (SNG) "alone" for sake of the exercise. Do not consider any sources or other policies. Please answer if the subject meets the SNG guidelines based on the given content below, and specify which notability criteria they meet or fail.

For scenarios 7-11 specify which SNGs would establish the subject's notability.

Scenario 1

An editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2020 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why? Question? After a thorough read of WP:NSPORT I can't seem to find anywhere that demonstrates whether it would be notable or not.

This is a little tricky because it's actually covered under WP:NEVENT. Given that what are your thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 2

A New York city-based 2020 start-up software company, specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund. ☒N WP:MULTSOURCES deems editors should pay attention to bias. A 2020 software startup is likely subject to recentism and would not be considered notable.

checkY
Scenario 3

Movsar Evloev who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 12-0. checkY per WP:NMMA as they have fought more than three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, they are considered notable.

checkY
Scenario 4

An upcoming action-drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, which will be in production in August 2020 and to be released on March 2021 in the cinemas. ☒N Per WP:NFF, upcoming films should not have articles and are not considered notable.

So August 2020 has already happened. Once it enters production, if there is sourcing to confirm that, NFF says it can be OK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 5

A political candidate, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2020 election for a Senator position in the United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy. checkY WP:NPOL says that political candidates who have been at a national level are considered notable, but also Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

The US Senate isn't at the national level. Only the President/VP is. This should probably be a redirect to the article about the election. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 6

A singer who self-produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify. ☒N if their songs are only listed in Spotify and haven't been documented in significant coverage by reliable sources, then they are not considered notable per WP:SPOTIFY

checkY
Scenario 7

Carlos Alós-Ferrer checkY, WP:NACADEMIC

checkY
Scenario 8

Alistair Overeem checkY, WP:NMMA

checkY
Scenario 9

Jennifer Lopez checkY, WP:SINGER

checkY Among other SNGs
Scenario 10

Three Mile Island accident checkY, WP:EVENTCRIT

checkY
Scenario 11

Persepolis checkY, WP:GEOLAND

checkY

Apologies for getting back so late, I had some personal issues and didn't have time to finish this. I have filled in the above responses as I believed suitable, but I will admit I was a bit confused on this exercise. Looking forward to your feedback! Barkeep49 — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Berrely: I see you didn't answer Q1 and 2. Did you have questions about how to do them or just not see them? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That's weird, I did do them, perhaps my quick edit tool glitched out. I'll try to do them as soon as possible. Apologies for the inconvenience. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Berrely: just checking in to see if you've seen the feedback here (especially re:NCORP) and if so if you're ready for something more. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 yep I've read the feedback, and I now understand what I did wrong with NCORP. I'm ready to move on to the next assignment :) — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

SNG Practice

[edit]

Berrely, using the NPP Feed go ahead and find 5 articles that make a claim to notability under 5 different SNGs (1 of these should be NCORP). Below, list the article, what SNG criteria specifically is being claimed, and whether or not it meets the criteria for that SNG (e.g. it meets NCRIC criteria 2 but not the others). If an article makes a claim to more than 1 SNG list them all. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Nancy Cu-Unjieng, WP:BLP. Red XN Doesn't seem to be written from a neutral point of view, exhibiting sentences and phrases such as "like minded", "desired to", "Cu has been very vocal on addressing various forms of animal rights violation, whether through horse fighting, dog consumption etc.". Almost all of the sources are unreliable, with sources such as "mindfulness" news websites, the article subject's own website, LinkedIn, a radio interview, and others. Some sources may be reliable, but I am unsure, such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The claims made in the article seem to be sourced, though some sources are completely irrelevant to the claims.

checkY

2. Coforge (now Draft:Coforge), WP:NCORP. checkY At first glance seems to fail NCORP, but on closer inspection it seems it may borderline pass it. Ignoring all the sources from equity websites, there are multiple sources in significant coverages, from The New Indian Express, Firstpost and The Economic Times. A quick Google search reveals many more independent and reliable sources.

{[tick}}

3. Kaalam Neram Kadhal, WP:WEB. Red XN Does not have multiple reliable sources, all its sources are from tabloids. Neither has it won any well known awards.

checkY - I will note that the WEB SNG is a lot less useful than it once was as often web content can be fairly analogized to some other criteria these days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

4. The Day I Died: Unclosed Case, WP:NFILM. Red XN The article seems to pass WP:GNG, with sources that are independent and in significant coverage (however I am unaware of their reliability). However, it may be assumed the article fails WP:NFF, as it is yet to be released, but since it has commenced principal photography, it passed NFF.

Your analysis correctly notes that this should be a yes as Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Future_films,_incomplete_films,_and_undistributed_films is part of the SNG. Guessing you went with the no tick because it's not one of the things listed under evidence of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

5. 1959 United Nations Security Council election, WP:NEVENT. checkY Though the article's sources do not show this, this was a very significant event, and passes NEVENT as it was of widespread international impact.

checkY
Pinging Barkeep49,  Done Assignment finished, please tell me of any errors I made. Hope for the best. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Berrely: see my feedback above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
​Thanks for the feedback! I couldn't seem to find a guideline for TV shows so I went with WEB. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 06:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 I am ready for my next assignment :) — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Berrely: great. If I could again point you to the syllabus at WP:NPPS what do you feel like you could use practice on? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I'd be interested in practicing on Wikipedia policy and guidelines (this is probably one of my stronger areas, but I think it would be useful to take a refresher to make sure I know them properly). — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Content Policy

[edit]

Alright Berrely here we go.

Article titles

[edit]

Please read WP:TITLE and answer the questions below

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

Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general and statesman who is widely considered one of the greatest military commanders in history. His father, Hamilcar Barca, was a leading Carthaginian commander during the First Punic War (264–241 BC).[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Eve MacDonald (24 February 2015). Hannibal: A Hellenistic Life. Yale University Press. pp. 48–. ISBN 978-0-300-21015-6.
  2. ^ John Whitaker; Hannibal (1794). The course of Hannibal over the Alps ascertained. John Stockdale, Piccadilly. pp. 1–.
  3. ^ Patrick N Hunt (11 July 2017). Hannibal. Simon & Schuster. pp. 214–. ISBN 978-1-4391-0977-9.

Answer: Red XN Per WP:COMMONNAME. The most common name and that used in the article is "Hannibal Barca" so that is what should be used. checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is an American retired professional basketball player and former president of basketball operations of the Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He played point guard for the Lakers for 13 seasons.[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Roselius, J. Chris. (2011). Magic Johnson : basketball star & entrepreneur. Edina, Minn.: ABDO Pub. Co. ISBN 9781617147562. OCLC 663953248.
  2. ^ "Magic Johnson | Biography & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  3. ^ Stein, Marc; Deb, Sopan (2019-04-11). "Magic Johnson Always Set His Sights Beyond Basketball". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  4. ^ "Magic Johnson: Michael Jordan said Stephen Curry not Hall of Famer in fear of tampering fine". sports.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2019-10-23.

Answer: Red XN Once again no, with WP:COMMONNAME coming into play once again. Regardless if it is their nickname, the most common name for a subject should be that used in an article.

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

[edit]

Please read WP:BLP and answer the questions below.

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

Conor Anthony McGregor (born 14 July 1988) is an Irish professional mixed martial artist and boxer. His is a former Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) featherweight and lightweight champion.[1]

On 15 August 2019, TMZ Sports published a video that appeared to show McGregor punching a man at The Marble Arch Pub in Dublin.[2] The incident happened on 6 April and was originally reported by Irish media, although without the video that showed the attack. Irish police stated in April that they had opened an investigation.[3] McGregor was charged with assault and first appeared in court on 11 October 2019.[4][5][6]

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

References

  1. ^ "The most surprising stories behind Conor McGregor's incredible success". IrishCentral. 13 December 2016. Retrieved 3 September 2017.
  2. ^ "Video of Conor McGregor Punching Old Man in Head in Whiskey Dispute". TMZ. Retrieved 2019-08-22.
  3. ^ Gaydos, Ryan (2019-08-15). "Conor McGregor seen on video punching bar patron in face over whiskey". Fox News. Retrieved 2019-08-22.
  4. ^ "Conor McGregor charged with pub assault, to appear in Dublin court next week". RT International. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  5. ^ "UFC: McGregor charged with assault for punching elderly man". South China Morning Post. 2019-10-05. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  6. ^ "McGregor appears in court in assault case". ESPN.com. 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-23.


Answer: checkY Most claims are sourced (the latter is not, but I assume that a contributor is trying to follow WP:CITELEAD and not use many references in the lead). The tone used is suitable for Wikipedia, as well as a neutral point of view being maintained.

I don't think this one is as clear as you've made it out to be. The tone is suitable. The question becomes: are the sources appropriate for the information cited? Do the uncited statements need citation based on policy? Berrely, can you answer these follow-ups? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 (apologies to Barkeep for the accidental ping) The sources cited are reliable sources (though Encyclopædia Britannica should be used with caution as it is a tertiary source). All the claims are backed up by sources that are related to the claim and insignificant coverage. The uncited statements, if not sourced elsewhere in the article, require reliable sources or should be challenged and removed. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Berrely:, poor Barkeep gets my pings all the time (and also since you didn't have a new signature, the ping didn't go to me). The only thing that makes it a bit better is that I registered here first. But I do feel bad for him on that front. Anyhow, as for the actual sources, have we talked about WP:NPPRS? It's a great guide to many common sources, including foreign language sources. After looking at that, how does that change your assessment? As for that last paragraph, In April 2019, McGregor is the father of Terri Murray's son, Clodagh. wouldn't need a source. Murray bedded McGregor in 2017 at his hotel after the Aintree Grand National just four weeks bofore McGregor's girlfriend Dee Devlin gave birth to their son. is salacious enough that I would suggest it does need an in-line source to an RS to be included. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't in fact heard about this guide, it's very useful! It looks like TMZ has no consensus, but is generally considered unreliable as it seems to be a tabloidish style website. Fox News is considered reliable for news coverage that isn't related to political and science topics, so it is suitable. RT is heavily marked as a "propaganda" station and is not considered reliable for controversial topics. As this claim seems to be relatively controversial, it wouldn't be a suitable source. There doesn't seem to be any consensus for South China MP, and ESPN is a reliable source. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The South China Morning Post is actually on there and is generally reliable. And yes TMZ is not reliable for controversial information, but what is being linked is actually a video of the incident. So given all this new information what does that mean for you in terms of what you would do if you saw this content? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If the TMZ is being cited simply for the video, not for the other content it says, then it can be used as a source for the content. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 09:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Diana Nyad (née Sneed; born August 22, 1949) is an American author, journalist, motivational speaker, and long-distance swimmer who lives in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. and could be contacted at +0-202-456-6213.[1] Nyad gained national attention in 1975 when she swam around Manhattan (28 mi or 45 km) and in 1979 when she swam from North Bimini, The Bahamas, to Juno Beach, Florida (102 mi (164 km)). In 2013, on her fifth attempt and at age 64, she became the first person confirmed to swim from Cuba to Florida without the aid of a shark cage, swimming from Havana to Key West (110 mi or 180 km).[2]

References

  1. ^ Anne-Marie Garcia (September 2, 2013). "Diana Nyad completes Cuba-Florida swim". USA Today.
  2. ^ Alvarez, Lizette (September 2, 2013). "Nyad Completes Cuba-to-Florida Swim". The New York Times.

Answer: Red XN Personal information and phone numbers are disclosed, the infringing information should be submitted to the oversight team for suppresion.

checkY Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
[edit]

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


5. Could this image-1 be uploaded and used on Wikipedia? Why?

Answer: checkY https://www.defense.gov/ask-us/faq/Article/1775351/do-i-need-permission-to-use-photos-from-dod/ All content from the Department of Defense, unless stated otherwise, is in the public domain].

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


6. Could this image-2 be uploaded and used on Wikipedia? Why?

Answer: checkY the original image source says it is in the public domain

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

7. Could this image-3 be uploaded and used on Wikipedia? Why?

Answer: checkY All Pixabay images are released under CC-Zero

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

8. Could this image-4 be uploaded and used on Wikipedia? Why?

Answer: Red XN This is a private artist selling a painting, and as there is no license disclosed, the image cannot be used.

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

[edit]

Please read WP:NPOV and MOS:PUFF. Point out the WP:NPOV words/phrases in Questions 9 & 10.

9. She is a brilliant boxer with a rare and exceptional beauty. She turned Pro at the age of 19 after winning one amateur fight on December 14, 2013 where she destroyed her opponent in 20 seconds. Her talent and marketability made her a fighter to watch right out the gate and she fought under XXX promotion on her next fight on February 2014.

Answer:

  • brilliant
  • rare
  • exceptional
  • destroyed her opponent in seconds
  • marketability
  • watch right out of the gate

checkY 10. He is a popular, acclaimed Bulgarian actor, who loves by all who have watched his films. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry since he was at the tender, innocent of the age of 14 and he has featured in 44 films.

Answer:

  • popular
  • acclaimed
  • loves by all
  • tender
  • innocent
  • featured in 44 films

checkY except featured in 44 films which would be fine. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


11. Please read WP:DUE and in your own words, please explain why it is important to provide balance and due weight content in an article. Answer: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that strives to prevent neutral content. Instead of providing undue wait to views of minorities, it should be given to more widely held views. If this was not followed, Wikipedia could be seen as biased and representing of views generally not followed.

checkY

No original research

[edit]

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

12. In your own words, why is Wikipedia not a platform for publishing original research? Answer: Encyclopaedias should be backed up by independent and reliable sources. Original research that cannot be verified should not be on Wikipedia as it could cause incorrect and factually inaccurate information to be included in a Wikipedia article.

checkY and it also would be a source of editor conflict. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

13. In your own words, please provide one example with explanation when it is appropriate to insert an original research or an opinion in an article. Answer: When the source has been translated from another language into English, it is not considered original research.

checkY

14. See this video and write an article paragraph that properly presents claims supported by the source. Answer: When asked by an Islam Net reporter, Shady Alsuleiman said that clothing of muslim people must be baggy and loose, non-see-through, and to not draw attention with the usage of colours. He also claims that jeans and trousers cannot be worn but followers of Islam, as they are not baggy clothing. (I really struggled with this)

checkY It's a hard one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability

[edit]

Please read WP:V and answer the questions below

15. Three independent, reliable sources say that a subject has 2 sons, but in reality, he has 3 sons. Could we change the content from "2" sons to "3 sons"? Why? Answer: Red XN Unless the claim that they have 3 sons is backed up by other reliable sources, it should not be changed and the value provided by the other sources should be used.

Pinging Barkeep49, assignment finished. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
checkY A key (and difficult) concept is we are about verifiability not truth. I actually ran into this "number of children" issue recently and for now we have what I ultimately suspect is the "wrong" answer in our content. We follow RS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Berrely I think we're set here. What would you like to move onto (unless you'd like more practice with any of these as I can give more scenarios). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I think communications would be good to work next on (I'm sorry I'm a logicist and have to go in order). — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
By the way Barkeep49 I might have to take a 1-3 day break so I won't be able to do any assignments in that time. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Berrely: no rush on the assignment below. We'll wait a few days after completing this assignment anyway because one piece is to see if there are any follow-up communications that come from the draft work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Communication with editors

[edit]
Wikipedia is the product of collaborations between many editors, some experienced and some new. Wikipedia values all constructive editors' contributions alike. Communication in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged especially for new editors who are not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Most new editors find it is a steep learning curve during the first few months of editing articles or creating articles in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and welcome template and answer the following questions. Do provide links and hist diff where appropriate.

Communication and editor interactions

[edit]

1. In your own words, why is it important to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE new editors? Everyone was a new editor once, and in the mass of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines (so complex they are that users often have to even take part in schools to understand them!), a newcomer can easily get lost. It is important to help guide these new editors along their way, because, in all honestly, most of them just want to help.

2. How do we deal with a bad faith registered user and how do we deal with a bad faith IP editor? If they have gone over level 4 in warnings, then it is best to leave a note on their talk, asking them to stop. If they ignore the message or refuse to co-operate and continue being disruptive, taking the IP/registered user to AIV, AN3, AN or ANI for respective reasons, it sutiable.


Please review at least 5 recently submitted AfC drafts where you can leave a comment that helps communicate with the editor. List those drafts below * Draft:Gara (raag), the article seems to have good grammar, and it is readable, however it is not supported by any independent, reliable sources in significant coverage, so fails WP:GNG. I would leave a comment with the creator saying that they needed to make sure the article pass GNG.

  • Draft:X-League (Rugby League). This draft is clearly created by an user with a conflict of interest (who has since been blocked). It only has 3 sources, one of which is primary, the second a local news website of questionable reliability, and the third their own website. I'd tell the editor to declare their conflict of interest, and that they needed to back up their draft with independent, reliable sources.
  • Draft:Tricked Out Tractors. "The draft does contain sources, but 3 of those are primary and the other 6 seem to be from semi-reliable, lesser known magazines and newspapers, of questionable reliabilty. I recomend trying to find more independent, reliable sources. Please also remove the external links from the body, and follow episode list consensus at Wikipedia:Television episodes."
  • Draft:List of professional wrestling attendance records in Mexico. "Please back up the article with independent, reliable sources. Of the 23 sources, 11 are by one author, of the other 12, 3 are by the same author, and 6 are from the same website. The only reliable source appears to be number 16, a published book."
  • Draft:Jacob Kwaku Gyan "Clearly undersourced, with no evident notability as per WP:BLP, the mainspace article has also been deleted multiple times.
Pinging Barkeep49, I did do this a bit late, so some things may be incorrect. I look forward to your feedback — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 20:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll come back to this in a few days because I like to give people a chance to leave a message on your talk page as that is often where the true communication comes in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Berrely: - sorry I wasn't clear. I meant to say "actually leave the comments" not just write them here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Berrely: repinging you to see if you saw my message above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah apologies, I will try to get them done as soon as possible. — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • Talk∕Contribs 07:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Barkeep49: Sorry this took me a while, I've been a bit on and off Wikipedia recently. — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • Talk∕Contribs 14:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@Berrely: these all look good and no worries on taking a while. What are you hoping to do next? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I definitely feel like I could work on deletion. I don't feel as strong as I could be especially on things like PROD (I'm not sure what soft deletion is though).
@Barkeep49: apologies, as I didn't sign my previous post you didn't recieve the ping. Please see above :D — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 12:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Berrely: thanks for the ping. I did indeed miss you reply on my watchlist. So the thing about PROD is that I've found it to be nearly worthless in a NPP context. It's meant for uncontroversial deletions but newly created pages almost always have someone that wants to see them through and so I basically never PROD something when doing NPP, I just go to AfD. That's because at AfD you can also end up with a SOFTDELETE outcome. Essentially what this is when no one (or in some cases 1 or 2 other people) participates. At that point it can be closed as SOFTDELETE. Essentially it's treated like a WP:PROD instead of a full AfD. Because PRODs are designed to be uncontroversial they can be restored, on request, at WP:REFUND. The same is true of AfD noms that close as soft delete. Does that make more sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Ah all right, that makes a lot more sense. I think I'm fine on everything in "Reviewing Procedures"; these are generally things I do a lot. I've recently started utlitising flow charts and guides (such as WP:NPPS) and find them very useful. However if you think it is important to go over it again, I'm happy to go over flowcharts and guides. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Flowchart practice

[edit]

Have you installed Superlinks? I find it helpful for accessing the flowchart while doing reviews. Let's keep this simple. Pick 5 articles from the new side of the NPP queue and say how would proceed with them through the flowchart. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

All right, the articles I picked are:
  • Yvan Dautin [1]: English? Yes > Any of these CSD? No > Blank? No > Context? Yes > Copyvio? No > 2 or more refs? No > Claim of significance? No > About a person? Yes > CSD A7
    • So this might meet on a very strict reading of A7. In reality I think very few CSD admins would delete it. A7 for musicians is more like "They have 30 followers on Spotify" sort of level. To have musical/acting appearances going back to the 70s would not be a good CSD. I'm not saying they're notable - enough patrollers speak French that I'd leave it to one of them rather than trying to do the BEFORE myself - but if they weren't I'd go AfD rather than CSD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Generally I agree, I usually stay away from articles where the majority of the sources are in a different language. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 08:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wader (American) [2]: English? Yes > Any of these CSD? No > Blank? No > Context? Yes > Copyvio? No > 2 or more refs? Yes > Duplicate? No > Correct title? Yes > Categories? Yes? (but add more) > Stub tag? Yes > Tags? No > WikiProjects? Yes > Reviewed
    • checkY
  • Touhid Talukder [3]: English? Yes > Any of these CSD? No > Blank? No > Context? Yes > Copyvio? No > 2 or more ind refs? No > Claim of significance? No > About a person? Yes > CSD A7
    • Being the producer of a notable TV show would be enough of a CCS for me to decline it. I see it's at AfD now which I expect is the right place for this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • John Stewart (rugby union) [4]: English? Yes > Any of these CSD? No > Blank? No > Context? Yes > Copyvio? No > 2 or more ind refs? No > Claim of significance? No > Person? Yes > CSD A7? (I'm not sure on this one as it may pass it's relevant SNG)
    • So the SNG is vital here. Go ahead and see what you can make of the his notability against the SNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Palestinian Al Mojahden [5]: English? Yes > Any of these criteria? No > Blank? No > Context? Yes > Copyvio? No > 2 or more ind refs? No > Claim of sign? No > Organisation? Yes > CSD A7
    • Again one where strictly speaking there's not a clear "CCS statement" like thre is with Talukder but I would be hesitant to delete outside of AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I'd probably take this one to AfD per WP:ORG. Annoyingly as there are many groups with very similar names, it was a bit of a pain to do a BEFORE, but I could only find one source [6], which isn't even in significant coverage. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 08:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
As a note, I do use Superlinks, but I believe it does not show the flowchart to a user who doesn't have patrol perms. I have also shortened some of the flowchart messages. Pinging Barkeep49 — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 16:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Berrely: sorry to be a pain but can you find the versions where you went through the checklists for these? Obviously pages might have changed since you went through them and I want to make sure to "see what you saw". If it's easier feel free to do new articles (no rush, as always). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I have added the diffs, hope this helps! — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 08:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
See feedback above Berrely. You might have done this, but noting that it's a good idea to do a brief Google search before doing an A7 nomination. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I rarely use A7 unless I am really sure. In this case I just thought what to do if I followed to instructions strictly. Most of the time if I thought a subject wasn't notable I'd take it to AfD over CSD. I was going to use SNGs but wasn't sure if you wanted me to follow the flowchart strictly. I've gone through these again and assessed them a little more losely based on SNGs. Do you want me to do this again with some new articles? Barkeep49 — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 08:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes let's do another round. The idea of the flow chart is to make sure you're asking the right questions (for instance as a new reviewer without the flowchart I'd have been less attentive to Article titles being correct). But ultimately you need to still arrive at the correct conclusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Royal Media Services: English? Yes > Any of these CSD? No > Blank? No > Copyvio? No > 2 or more refs? No > SigNif? No > About org? Yes > CSD A7
    Owning multiple TV stations would be enough to avoid A7 in my book. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Guess I'm a bit biased from all of the low quality tv-channels where I come from 😜, but couldn't find anything in NCORP, will keep that in mind :D. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Balvir Singh Luthra: English? Yes > Any of these CSD? No > skip to gng > 2 or more refs? No > SigNif? Yes > BLP? No > BEFORE? > No > SNG? Maybe? I'm not really sure. I'd probably go to another article as I wouldn't feel confident reviewing this one.
    Election constituencies are almost always going to be notable. This is one of those things you just learn by doing or by trying to find similar articles and see if they have been around a long time and/or patrolled by other experienced editors. I would verify that it exists rather than just slapping a no sources tag (and if I did that I'd probably just include a citation myself even though it's not strictly required of NPP). But yes moving on is often an acceptable outcome when reviewing NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Si Nos Dejan: English? Yes > Any of these CSD? No > Blank? No > Context? Yes > Copyvio? No > GNG? 2+ refs, but I'm not sure about reliability > Yes(?) > Already exist > Correct title? No (but has been moved) > Cats? Yes > Stub tags? Yes > Talk? Yes > Reviewed (though I wouldn't review this as I'm unsure about the sources)
    Unsure how? For me GoogleTranslate offers enough for me to feel comfortable that it's going to pass notability. Your thinking here was good. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Max Reger Prize English? Yes > Any of these CSD? No > Blank? No > Context? Yes > Copyvio? No > GNG? No > Claim of signif? Yes > Bio? No > Google RS? No (I didn't search that deep, so there may be) > SNG? No > Borderline? Yes > Useful prose? Yes > Draftify
    Ugh awards. This reads to me like a translation of something from German but I couldn't find a dewiki article so maybe it's just someone with limited English proficiency. I think this is a case where a decision one way or another is probably better than DRAFTIFY, which needs to be used sparingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I really had no idea for the awards. Sadly the only proposed guideline WP:NAWARD failed.
  • Diego Martin English? Yes > Any of these CSD? No > Blank > No > Context? Yes > Copyvio? No > GNG? Yes > Already exist? > Uncategorised > Talk? Yes > Reviewed
    Good analysis. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, sorry for taking literaly months on this, school has really had a toll me on me. Looking forward for your feedback! — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 20:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Barkeep49 did you get my ping? If you're taking a break it's fine. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I did get to it and meant to circle back but my wiki time remains limited. I will get to this next week when my wiki levels should resume to a normal level of activity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Berrely: feedback above. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe I should try doing 5 more. I guess I find it a bit weird just making a verdict straight away as compared to through a chart, but feel free to say if you think I should — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the chart is useful for making sure you consider all elements. When you reach a certain level it's not worth using but as a new editor I think it is useful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Round 3
  • TheViper: English? Yes > CSD? No > Blank? No > Context? Yes > CopyVio? No (well a tiny bit [7]) > GNG? No > SigNif? Yes > BLP? Yes > Refs? Yes > Any RS? No > SNG? No (see VP) > Borderline? No > PROD
    I find PROD in NPP basically worthless but it's a perfectly acceptable answer here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Aoife Colvill: CSD? No > Blank? No > Context? Yes > CopyVio? No > GNG? Yes > ........ > Reviewed
    checkY
  • Baramulla Public School: ...... > Context? Yes > CopyVio? No > GNG? No > Significance? No > A7? No > A9? No > A11? No > BLP? No > Google search? No > SNG? No > Borderline? No > PROD
    For a while schools were untouchable at AfD. That's softened some now but I found enough stuff in Urdu to suggest that an AfD is at least appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Kentucky Route 2698: ....... > GNG? No > Significance? Yes > BLP? No > RS? No > SNG? Yes, WP:GEOROAD > ........ > Reviewed
    checkY
  • Britt-Marie Was Here (film): ....... > GNG? Yes > ...... WikiProjects? Yes > Reviewed
    checkY
Barkeep49 I have done 5 more, I hope this time it's better. The "....." are basically just skipping parts that are exactly the same every time such as CopyVios, etc. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey Barkeep49, I understand if you're busy, and if you are, it's fine, just wanted to check you hadn't missed my last ping. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Berrely: I never saw the May 8 ping and also missed it on my watchlist. Sorry about that. Comments above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Barkeep49 I've read through your suggestions (thanks for responding :D). I'll try to reduce relying on PROD. I don't really like it either but that's what the flowchart suggested. Any other suggestions? — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 16:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Not really. I think you've gotten this part down. In general I would suggest you're probably ready to do real patrolling. What still feels uncomfortable for you? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd say some of the very specific SNGs are probably my weakest point, especially NACADEMIC. As an AfC reviewer, I try to avoid drafts that may or may not fall under a specific part of the SNGs that I'm unsure about. I'm quite confident on most SNGs however, especially WP:NWEB, WP:NCORP and (most of) WP:NBIO. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 16:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean the truth is you can basically avoid reviewing SNGs of some types. Onel, an incredibly prolific reviewer, doesn't do a lot of NSPORT for instance. But sure we can focus on SNGs. Which ones besides NPROF would you like to review? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Other than NPROF there aren't much. In NSPORT footballers are usually quite clearcut but I do sometimes get confused with the smaller sports with less information. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 16:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

NPROF

[edit]

Ok Berrely here are some people who make a claim to notability under NPROF. I believe this grouping will let us examine most of the criteria. As of this writing they're all unreviewed but if something gets reviewed before you get to it we'll still do the analysis and see if we agree. For each one talk through which NPROF criteria they're making a claim to and whether or not they seem to qualify under that criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Tahir R. Andrabi; So this would fall under 5 and 6. The subject is a professor at Pomona College, but not a "Distinguished Professor" (I'm not sure what a Stedman-Sumner Professor is, so he may pass this), neither is he a high-level official, so I would say Red XN No.
    So Stedman-Sumner appears to be a named chair. Since NPROF first came around higher ed has gotten a bit more aggressive about naming chairs so it's not quite the same signifier it once was but it but by the letter of the guideline Andrabi passes. See more at Named chair Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Kaweh Mansouri; Criterion 1? As a rule of thumb iirc, each paper should have over 100 citations. The first linked one has over 100, however the second one has around 50 (scopus). I'm not really sure with this one, but I think they may pass borderline? ? Tentative.
    Being an adjunct professor is generally not a good sign. The 100 cites is a reasonable rule of thumb but really the impact is a better one and that is a bit different in each discipline (as different disciplines have different practices about just how much they cite stuff). I'd lean towards probably not but I would probably leave this alone because outside of a few areas I hate judging based on scholarly impact when it's not clear. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Lim Kok Wing; 2 and 6. For 2, they've had 4 levels that are at the highest national level, and for 6, they've chaired a major(?) university. So I would say Green tickY yes.
    I agree. This is a clear pass. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Jack I. Abecassis; There's almost nothing in the article for me to go of, so I would probably go with the same points as the first article (even the same university!). According to Scodus, they've only ever had one citation. So Red XN no.
    This is what I'm talking about when I say there's been chair inflation. I agree with your assessment that he's not notable despite that putative pass and given his complete lack of academic writing I might be willing to fight the AfD fight about it (especially because the only cite is to his university BIO which is allowed with NPROF but still not my favorite). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sean Speer; you know it's not good when Scodus doesn't come up with anything. The subject is probably notable under other SNGs, but for PROF, I can't really find any points he'd fall under. Their contributions seem to have been more right-wing commentary than being an academic.
God PROF is annoying... — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 16:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • How do you evaluate criteria 7 for them? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Barkeep49 for criteria 7 I'd say they probably pass. They have degrees in economics (from what I can see). In this capacity, he became a manager in stakeholder relations and a senior economic advisor. I wouldn't say this counts as a "substantial impact", however he did then take part in "authoring a series of articles and policy recommendations for the Trudeau government entitled 'From A Mandate For Change To A Plan To Govern'" so likely Green tickY — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    Yes I rate them as a pass on that criteria as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Barkeep49 incase you missed this on your watchlist; if not respond when needed. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I had indeed missed this. One followup question. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Berrely: - sorry I was on real world vacation when this ping came in and kept thinking I would get back to it before I have. Do you want to do some more practice with NPROF people or move on to a different topic? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I think I'd prefer to move onto a different topic; NPROF is quite confusing, and I don't think if I do NPP I'd review pages that fall under it (I don't at AfC either). — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@Berrely: sure. As this has always been a bit of mentorship as much as school I'll let you continue to guide our direction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 what else is there on the course to do? Do you think I have anywhere where I should do more work? — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 12:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
In general I think you've had the skills necessary for a while. The general course curriculum can be found Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School#Syllabus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I think everything's been covered? I can't see anything on the syllabus that we haven't done (please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not sure what's meant to be done now, it appears there's an exam(?) or test? I'm unsure. Do you think there's anywhere else we didn't go over? — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I really need to remember to ping, sorry. Barkeep49 — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


Culminating work

[edit]

Berrely, at your leisure, find 25 new pages to patrol, and list them here. Note how you would handle them (i.e. tag for more sources and mark reviewed, AfD, etc) and give a little bit of explanation why. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to do this in parts. Here are the first few:
  1. Tiempos de dictadura. Assess and tag as stub, assess via NFILM; can't find a lot of sources (their may be but it gets lost considering the film's name literally translates to "Times of dictatorship"), so I'll  AfD.
  2. The Dose. Add CN for plot summary, passes NFILM,  reviewed
  3. Ryūga Cave. Assess and tag as stub, has reliable sources covering at and passes WP:GEOLAND so  reviewed
  4. 2021–22 Minnesota Wild season. Assess, season of national tournament so passes WP:NSEASONS,  reviewed
  5. We're All In This Together (High School Musical song). No sources, no categories, assess, I can't find significant coverage for this, so either boldly redirect to High School Musical (soundtrack) or  AfD.
  6. Golden City 2 station. No sources, BEFORE comes up with nothing. Following the flowchart, it suggests to PROD the article, but as it seems that I should stay away from PROD, AfD.
  7. Ossama al-Mefty. 2 primary sources, and BEFORE only comes up with one mention in a local newspaper. Presumably this would fall under WP:NACADEMIC. I think(?) the subject may pass number 5, but I'm unsure. Tentatively mark as reviewed though I would skip this normally.
  8. Patagorhacos seems to pass WP:NSPECIES, as it has been published in an academic paper,  reviewed
  9. 2022 Peshawar Mosque bombing. Falls under WP:NEVENT. Has been covered by multiple RS such as Reuters, Al Jazeera, NBC and the New York Times, passed GNG, would probably tag with {{current}},  reviewed
  10. Parotocinclus minutus name has been published and confirmed in ITIS, which is a RS for this topic, passed WP:NSPECIES,  reviewed
  11. Kurt Krjeńc falls under the realm of WP:NPOLITICIAN. He held a seat in the Volkskammer for East Germany. This is a national political position, so I would assess, perhaps tag for more sources, then  reviewed
  12. Alex Faxton. According to WP:NYOUTUBE, YouTubers should pass GNG, but none of the sources in the article demonstate this, and a "Alex+Faxton" Google search doesn't come up with any RS. So I would  AfD.
  13. George Kinney (horse). Bit of a weird one (never seen an article dedicated to a horse), but it doesn't fall under any SNGs afaik, so GNG applies. The article cites no sources, other than a database of questionable reliability, and I can't find any source online. There may be some offline sources, e.g. in newspapers, so I'm unsure. I'd very tentatively redirect to Belmont Stakes but I'm still not sure.
  14. Call Me Nightlife per WP:NMUSIC#Albums, albums need to meet WP:GNG, and being written by a notable singer does not let them inherit notability. The only source used is Discogs, an unreliable source. Hence, I'd redirect to Nokko.
  15. Phonology (Carr book): This follows WP:BOOKCRT, and I'm a bit unsure. The Ken Lodge review is published and reliable, but the latter review, by Snezhina Dimitrova, is on a linguistic mailing list, which isn't a published source. I'd tag for more sources and very tentatively mark as reviewed, as the author of the latter appears to be a subject-matter expert, but I'm still unsure.
  16. Sergianism: This article cites one book, an extract of a Russian language source (I think?). After researching for a while, I can only find 2-3 passing mentions of the subject in some reference books, and no significant coverage. Because of this, I'd AfD this article.
  17. Toplik, Štip: All settlements that have at some point been inhabited are notable per WP:NLAND, and notability is not temporary. So, I would mark as reviewed.
  18. Leonard Shengold: Obituaries in many newspapers of record and RS like the NYT and Los Angeles Times, relatively decent amount of citations, the obits also say he had a significant impact in his field of research, so passes WP:NACADEMIC #1. Reciepent of a Sigourney Award which, whilst I cannot find a Wikipedia article for, appears to be a signifiant award in the field of psychiatry, so might pass criterion 2 as well. Assess, and description and  reviewed
  19. Khairul Islam: Clear promo article likely created by a user with a COI, quick search comes up with no sources online and the only other source is a facebook profile. Nominate for deletion
  20. Opalomonadea: based on the stupidly broad WP:NSPECIES, basically any organism that exists is notable. Here, it has been described in a reliable, peer-reviewed journal, so it passes the criteria. Assess, add desc and disambiguate link and  reviewed
  21. Rahul Mathur soldier with no indication of notability, The Week is of questionable reliability and NSOLDIER no longer exists. However I am unsure about whether to AfD this so I'd probably tag for more sources and leave someone more experienced in this topic of notability to handle it.
  22. Harod Stream typically any indication other than being just listed in coordinates means an article is notable per WP:GEOLAND, and this has mentions in an encylopaedia and some tourism websites, so passes. Tag as stub, assess and  reviewed
  23. Pathaan (2023) unreleased film of which notability is not demonstrated. The page is broken as well and I can't find sources on a before. I would PROD or AfD.
  24. Strangers (2022 film). Significant coverage in at least 3 RS cited and many more found. I'd say it passed the basic criteria of WP:NFILM. Cleanup, assess and reviewed
  25. Oriol Vinyals falls under WP:NACADEMIC. I'd say the subject passes criterion 1 as he is the creator of a significantly reported upon AI at Google. However I'm still a bit unsure on this. I'd tentatively mark as reviewed.
Barkeep49 after over 2 years, I believe I am finally done with this. I await your feedback: I had ambivalent feelings on some of these. – Berrely • T∕C 19:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Barkeep49 in case you missed this, if you're busy I'm fine with waiting for however long needed. – Berrely • T∕C 07:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Barkeep49 I appreciate the time passed and the circumstances that have changed, so I just wanted to query on what my status here is. I started this in light of my lack of knowledge in notability guidelines, but I feel I have now garnered sufficient understanding of our guidelines-- so whether you want to continue is your choice. Thanks for all your help. – Isochrone (T) 11:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Isochrone/NPP_School&oldid=1167377577"