User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Celestina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome Celestina007. We will use this space to do our NPP work; I recommend you put it on your watchlist (I have done so already). I know you've said you've read the syllabus and feel like you're great on 90% of the topics. That will let us move quickly through some areas no doubt. 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,

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) 02:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 first off thanks for accepting me as a student & it is definitely a privilege to work & learn from you.
My three greatest strength in NPP reviewing would be
1. My ability to observe non notable articles and appropriately nominate them for deletion
2. Usage of maintenance tags
3. My knowledge of G11 as pertains organizations & individuals.
Where I am currently not strongest Or rather where I’d need further coaching would be;
1. My knowledge of the A7 as pertains autobiographies and if or not to tag them with the A7 or not (infact to be honest this is the only area that I am most affected in & a thorough teaching here is most salient)
2. My approach to Newbies who have been cautioned over & over again but still persist on doing the wrong things.
3. How the prod deletion really works & when & when not to use it. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Celestina. This will be helpful in shaping the work I present to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 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) 05:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49 I’m glad to begin these assignments.

On Draft:Lisa Jay Jenkins which I happened to click on first by chance the following would be my approach.

On Draft:Lisa Jay Jenkins

First I’d welcome the editor & thank her for joining the community but this “welcome” note would be one with a note telling her why autobiographical articles are usually not the brightest of ideas & why they are generally not encouraged in this collaborative project. Explaining to her that autobiographical articles often have a WP:COI problem that would most likely obstruct a WP:NPOV. I shall also make her understand that it is important for her to familiarize herself with basic policies like WP:5P, WP:MOS, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC & WP:ANYBIO before deciding to create any articles in future. Ultimately, if the article has spent a significant amount of time on the New Pages Feed. I’d nominate the article for deletion because it apparently doesn’t scale WP:GNG which is a primary method of deciding notability across most articles in this community. I will be careful not to tag it with an A7 speedy delete because there is a claim of importance in the article.Celestina007 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Good analysis. AfD is the right outcome for articles like this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

On Draft:Fuelman

As a NPP/NPR & as a page mover, I shall move this article back to the editor’s draftspace immediately. Having done so, I shall welcome them as he/she appears to be new in this community & explain to them that their article was not properly written & does not conform with the conventional format in which articles are written. I shall link imperative polices for that a new user should familiarize themselves with before attempting to create an article of which the WP:MOS shall be one of them. In the case the editor adheres to my advice & properly writes the article before moving it back to Mainspace, I shall access the article even more because from my earlier observation I can observe the article is tilting towards a promotional tone & in the occasion I find the article to be on a clearly notable organization but written in a very promotional manner I shall put the “Tone” & “Neutral” maintainance tag on it but if it is a blatant promotional article for a clearly non notable organization then a G11 would be appropriate.Celestina007 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

So a couple of things. First, G11 can be used regardless of whether or not something is notable. It does get applied a bit more when people think something isn't notable but the language of the deletion requirement doesn't require that. Take me through your thinking that it meets the WP:DRAFTIFY requirements. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 Most definitely, I am very happy to explain. Now I know that until the article is indexed the google search engine does not display the article but that does not mean the article cannot be seen. Take for example the article creator created this article and having successfully moved it to Mainspace he/she decides to post a link to his/her social media site & as direct consequence, he/she has given millions of people the ability to click & view the article & now this is a problem as it is unbecoming of a Wikipedia article & does not fit the quality standard required by the community & falls below par at least per formatting it totally does not meet our quality standard which leads me to the second reason why I’d drafify the article, which is; so it could be thoroughly worked on.Celestina007 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: this is a common misconception about DRAFTIFY. DRAFTIFY is probably used too much by new page patrollers. Especially by new NPP rather than choosing an appropriate form of deletion. We'll circle back to DRAFTIFY later but for now please really read the section and let me know if you have questions about the criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 no, for now I do not, but just learnt a great lesson from what you just explained above & also something interesting caught my attention, apparently drafts deserving of it like for example (attack pages, blatant promotional piece & Copyvio’s) could be speedy deleted under CSD as an any other article on Mainspace??? I definitely didn’t know this before now.Celestina007 (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes the G (as in G11) stands for General meaning it applies to all articles/pages. A stands for article and only applies to mainspace articles, R is redirects, and T is templates. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

On Draft:1988 Canadian federal budget

If I encountered this in the New Pages Feed, from my observation I’d say minor copyedits may be made as the title suggests it is a budget for 1988 but in the info-box I can see the year “1990” used which is a contrast to what the article title says & having observed the reference provided I know he/she probably meant to write “1988” & not “1990” . I wouldn’t necessarily move it to draft, but that’s just me rather I’d ask for more citations or references to be included. I am more inclined to move to draft when it concerns Biographical articles that are undersourced or not sourced at all as I believe they are very much delicate & deserve to be treated with the utmost attention & care.Celestina007 (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does need tags. I applied two tags in accepted the draft and would have applied the same two in NPP. I rarely go above two and if I do one of them is almost always uncategorized which appears in a different place. For NPP it's the notability or not of the topic. How many sources it has or doesn't have only matters for biographies of living people. Otherwise in most situations it's about the topic itself not the current state of the article. Good catch about the infobox. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 I’d have to ask this though, am I to treat BLP’s & Biographical articles of people who are no longer alive with the same approach? For example you make mention on the article’s title being what’s important & not necessarily how many sources are present except for BLP’s, my question is this can I leave/not bother an under-sourced biographical article of a deceased person on the NPF? Or am I to treat just as seriously & meticulously as I’d treat a Biography of a living person? Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Good question. The BLP policy is unique and BLPs have special rules that don't apply to any other articles, including historical biographies. Some recently deceased people fall under the BLP policy but no, if someone has been dead for a while they are treated the same as any other topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I have happily concluded my first assignment & I’m willing to take corrections & await further assignments from you.Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

We'll do some more draft work soon. But for now let's back-up a step and look at Notability more abstractly. Please answer the questions below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Question 1

In your own words, how is notability defined on Wikipedia?

  • Answer: In my own words I’d say notability is defined, described & explained within the confines of the criteria contained in the general notability guidelines so from my understanding this is basically in-depth significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the the articles subject. But of course the use of the word “subject” might be misleading, so I’d say whatever the article is about must have been discussed significantly in reliable sources, be it a subject, an object, company, innovation & whatnot.Celestina007 (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Not wrong but also not really in your own words. But yes it's a hard question. I'll just note that you focused on the GNG in your answer but that's just the most common form of notability. It is not the only one. I'll just note what WP:N's nutshell says: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Question 2

Would step by step instructions on how to "Change a car tire" be considered a notable topic in Wikipedia? Why or why not?

  • Answer: Although this is a tricky question as I am unsure whether or not I’m to give reasons for why it is “notable” & for why it is “not notable” or if I am supposed to say “yes it is” & give reasons why I say it is notable, or say “no it is not” & give reasons why I think it is non notable. But I think I am to answer yes or No & give reasons for picking either. My take would be a No, because even though it is a notable topic generally speaking, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate information dump site where every information on earth has to be on. Changing tyres are quite common & a manual for changing tyres are handed to you per demand from the auto dealer. So is there a real reason changing tyres has to merit a Wikipedia page? My take is no. But again that’s just my thought process.Celestina007 (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Correct. WP:NOT gets into what Wikipedia is not and this includes things that would be covered by WikiHow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Question 3

What are the differences between the WP:GNG and the subject-specific notability guidelines? How do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?

  • Answer: From my observations & my current ideology, WP:GNG are general notability guidelines across the entire encyclopedia and are quite useful when a particular subject doesn’t necessarily fall into specific categories. I read the works of David Icke so pardon me to use this hypothetical example. Now an example i’d give would be determining the notability of Greys (aliens). I’m not sure there’s anything like WP:GREYALIEN, so how do we determine the notability of this so called alien? The test would be: has this alien been discussed with in-depth significant coverage in reliable multiple sources? If the answer is Yes, then the Alien can get a page. But for an actor who has failed a WP:GNG standard test he/she might still qualify if he fulfills a criterion from WP:NACTOR.Celestina007 (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Close but not quite. SNGs fall in two categories. Some offer shortcuts to the GNG - this is what WP:NACTOR is designed to do. Some SNGs offer criteria that supplement the GNG in showing what notability is. This actually brings us to the next assignment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

SNGs[edit]

Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at WP:SNG) into one of the two categories below. If some criteria for an SNG fall into each, go ahead and note this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: that's a lot more under supplements GNG than is normally accepted. Can you add some rationale for your thinking so I can provide clearer feedback? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I gladly would, for those I categorized under primarily indicates likely notability under WP:GNG my rationale, or rather, what I am trying to understand from your teachings is that they are saying things similar to what is already explained/described under WP:GNG whilst under Supplements WP:GNG in a criteria to demonstrate notability I believe although they reference GNG, they include other criterion/criteria not listed under WP:GNG. For very specific articles, for example Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) is very subject specific and includes numerous other criteria not listed under WP:GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment — I am sorry to digress, but I need to understanding something pertaining to “Notability” For certain guidelines such as WP:SINGER which pertains to musical artists, i want to know for sure if an artist is considered notable if they fulfill all listed criteria or are they considered notable if they satisfy at least one criterion. If not, then at least how many need to be satisfied in order for an artist to be considered notable and deserving of a biographical article on mainspace seeing as WP:SINGER has 12 solid criteria.Celestina007 (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Good question Celestina007. In most cases, something only needs to have met one criteria to be notable (either presumed or actually). At WP:SINGER the key wording is "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." with the bold part showing that it's just one. However, WP:NUMBER is a bit different. It just offers sets of questions for each kind of number and normally the answer to needs to be yes to some or all of the questions in each set to be notable. Take another go at the table now that you understand this (or ask more questions before you do). Write around 1 sentence about why you're putting it in that category for each SNG. You are correct that the supplements list will be longer than the primarily indicates notability list. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, sorry for the late submission(strange indeed for a recluse that I am) I was unavoidably absent for the better part of yesterday.Celestina007 (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment — What shall I do when a biographical article i see on the New Pages Feed, for example; about a musician satisfies GNG but not SNG or satisfies SNG but GNG what shall I do in this scenario? which is not hypothetical one I should add but actually a reality as it is currently the case on a Nigerian musician whose article is currently in an AFD who at least satisfies two criteria from the WP:MUSICBIO but overall lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: For most biographies, except for academics, if it doesn't meet GNG it's not notable. If it does meet an SNG you should be really really sure it does not meet GNG. For musicians especially if they meet the SNG they normally are notable. You can make use of WP:MUSICRS to help you find portential sources. I also note that you didn't put WP:ORG into either category. It's a super important one. Nor did you include WP:NPEOPLE or WP:BIO. What is your analysis of those? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Surely I shall glady categorize both.Celestina007 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Primarily indicates likely notability under WP:GNG
Both WP:BIO & WP:ORG fall under this category because having observed both guidelines we can observe that in short they basically repeat the mantra “in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject” hence we can say they are repeating the criteria under general notability guidelines hence we can say confidently that they both point towards WP:GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
checkY yes they both supplement GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy Sunday to you Barkeep49 pinging to notify you that current assignment issued to me by you has been completed 😊Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: yeah I have been at a bit of reduced activity these past few days. Appreciate your prompt responses. Best, 03:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Scenarios[edit]

Let's do a few scenarios to apply the knowledge from above. 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. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 1

An editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2019 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why?

  • Fails WP:EVENT, as WP:EVENT requires that an event is considered notable if it passes general notability guidelines but in this hypothetical scenario it doesn’t as it has no sources & automatically falls short of “in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources”
Red XN Notability is not about what sources are on the page. Notability is about what sources exist. The important factor here is actually WP:CRYSTAL. So even though there aren't sources on the page for the 2024 Olympics there is coverage which meets NEVENT easily (and there's a reason the 2028 Olympics are used as an example at CRYSTAL of a topic that is OK). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I was originally going to write this but changed my mind in the last minute. It’s good you have corrected me now so for future sake I wouldn’t be uncertain. Thanks for the correction.Celestina007 (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 2

A New York city based 2019 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.

  • Fails WP:ORG because “An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources” receiving 200k or any amount for that matter is not an evidence of true notability for any organization.

checkY This is important. An article about recieving investment does not show notability. Good job in recognizing this. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 3

Maycee Barber who is a female Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 7-0 and she is currently ranked #12 in the women's flyweight division.

  • Passes WP:MMABIO as she has fought 7 times in a top tier MMA organization. The bar is set at 3 but she clearly scales in this regard as she has fought & won 7 fixtures.

checkY Right outcome but WP:MMABIO is an essay. Such project essays are very controversial among New Page Patrollers and are generally not given any weight. WP:NMMA is the important figure which is where you get the number 3 from. However, not all of her fights are from "a top-tier MMA organization". I believe she has 4 such fights. So yes she's notable but having the right reasons why is as important as the outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 4

An upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, was reported will be in production in December 2019 and to be released on August 2020 in the cinemas.

  • Fails WP:NFILM because we understand from reading the guideline that it points to WP:GNG and from this scenario I am to work with there isn’t any mention on “in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources” & Furthermore under WP:NFF we are told to be skeptical about future films as anything is bound to happen during production.
checkY What you write is correct and I acted the same way when I started doing NPP. In reality major films that are in production are unlikely to be deleted at AfD and should generally be marked as reviewed as NFF is interpreted differently. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 5

A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2019 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy.

  • Fails WP:NPOL as being a candidate for an electoral office alone does not satisfy WP:NPOL. If said politician had prior coverage that may have shown evidence of notability but from this scenario we see the coverage he/she possess is in relation to their candidacy so this doesn’t satisfy WP:NPOL.

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 6

A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify.

  • Fails WP:MUSICBIO in the 12 listed criteria for inclusion We don’t observe self producing your album or having it on a music app as yardstick to substantiate or prove notability.

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 7

Carlos Alós-Ferrer

  • Passes WP:NACADEMIC as having observed the criteria he satisfies at least two from my observation.

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 8

Alistair Overeem

  • Passes WP:MMABIO as he has contended in more than three fixtures & also contented for a top tier belt.

checkY see comment above about difference between MMABIO and NMMA. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I was already aware of this per your earlier corrections but did not want to “cheat”.Celestina007 (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 9

Jennifer Lopez

  • Satisfies WP:SINGER as all criteria for inclusion are met.

This is correct but importantly what other criteria would apply? Passing one criteria is all that's necessary but knowing what possible criteria an article could pass is also important. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 Since we are dealing strictly with SNG’s here I’d say she passes WP:NACTOR as well. Also she can be classified as an entertainer, so I’d say WP:ENT is also satisfied.Celestina007 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 10

Three Mile Island accident

  • Passes WP:EVENT as the incident has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore having observed the aforementioned guideline carefully we can see this statement An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. hence we can confidently say that this passes WP:EVENT very much.

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 11

Persepolis

  • Passes WP:Notability (geographic features) as from the aforementioned guideline we read that Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable. Places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49, Captain sir. I’ve completed the assignment & I’m ready to take corrections & further assignments.Celestina007 (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Feedback given for all the above. Just one follow-up before we're ready to move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 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) 16:15, 24 January 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 24 January 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 a primary source & appears to be a website dedicated to him hence is not independent of the subject. No it appears to be a primary source as it is his personal website/dedicated to him, it is plausible that promo, lard & information that cannot be verified can be observed hence obstructing a neutral point of view value not understood ✘ 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}}.

Franklloydwright.org is definitely not independent. Primary and autobiographical sources can have value. However your analysis for not being reliable is good. And primary sources like this cannot be used for GNG which is one important thing we're measuring here. So good job on that. So the New York Post is not clearly reputable though it it is independent and it is signicant coverage. It is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as no consensus/additional considerations apply. Given that does this particular article seem to be rs? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

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.



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 anyone including the actor can upload his films & biography to IMDb No it is subject to the decisions of the subject they may inflate notability by adding several dubious movies to their credit No IMDb does not provide significant coverage in any which way ✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales No as he is a member of BAFTA this goes contrary to “indepent of the subject” Yes BAFTA is well recognized worldwide & possess editorial oversight. No having observed the source I do not see subject discussed with coverage. In fact i don’t see subject discussed anywhere in that source all I could observe were images upon images. ✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125 No The subject themselves as anyone else can in fact upload whatever they want on LinkedIn No The subject themselves can provide untrue information on that website as no one ever checks the veracity of claims made there hence linkedin can never be a reliable source. Yes The subject may write an entire epistle on themselves & this may be seen as significant coverage but it is not in a reliable source. ✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/ Yes subject does not seem to be directly or rather, does not seem to have influence over the publication No not a reputable news source and appears not to have a reputation for fact-checking. Also appears to be forum like. No appears to mention subject in passing. ✘ 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}}.

Good on IMDB, LinkedIn, and Behind. For BAFTA I'd probably have said it's independent but it's deifnitely not significant coverage. However, that's a minor point. Good job on these. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

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.



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 subject does not have any influence over the daily mail & they are reputable news source Yes They possess a reputation for fact checking & have editorial oversight. No they do discuss the subject but not what would be described as significant coverage as mere mentions of the birth of a new child & brief mentions on his career cannot constitute significant coverage. ✘ No
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108 No from the source I observed that he is a player for the team Yes they appear to be an official reputable website for a somewhat prestigious clubside hence are a reliable source. Yes they provide significant coverage & a well detailed timeline of his career. ✘ No
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308 Yes Although they do not discuss our own subject, the subject they discuss of does not seem to have any influence over the news source. Yes They appear to have editorial oversight & a reputation for fact checking, although I should mention once again that they do not talk of subject of our discussion but on someone else Yes it is an interview but interestingly, they discuss at learnt & significant coverage can be observed. ✔ Yes
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html Yes it appears to be a secondary source & the subject of article does not seem to have direct influence over their publication. No it appears to be maintained by a single invidual & editorial oversight can be observed. Yes significant coverage to a plausible degree can be observed in the article ✘ 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}}.

The Daily Mail is one of the most controversial sources available. In fact it has been deprecated so they don't have a reputation for fact checking or editorial oversight. Yes to the allblacks site. Can that source be used for the facts its citing? The NZHerald for instance doesn't appear to support its sentence. Good on SMH.

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.



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 No The source discusses the subject directly and in detail but only pertaining to a trivial incident & not overall coverage that would be pivotal to establish notability satisfying GNG. ✘ No
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch Yes renowned for their editorial oversight, the source is a major newspaper & subject does not in anyway have direct influence over their publications. Yes the source has a track record for fact checking & are a reputable news organization. No sadly subject is however only mentioned briefly in passing. ✘ No
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893 Yes subject has no direct influence over their publication as it is a secondary source independent of subject. No it is borderline reliable/unreliable hence its reliability it’s very much questionable. Yes it covers the subject with in-depth significant coverage. ✘ No
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012 Yes it isn’t a primary source of the subject & subject is not directly involved with the source but regardless appears as though he himself or anyone can login & make whatever input they deem fit No appears to be maintained by a single invidual with no reputation for fact checking & appears anyone can login & make edits without anyone bothering to verify as editorial oversight is absent. No mentions subject in a Resumé format, no real coverage whatsoever. ✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005 Yes subject obviously has no direct influence over the publications of the source as it is not a primary source or PR press release on his behalf Yes Generally accepted good source with editorial oversight & a reputation for fact checking. Yes Subject is discussed with coverage as observed from the source. ✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html No an interview with the subject cannot be independent of him as the result of the whole interview is subject to what he said word for word. No I can’t seem to find any editorial oversight & the news source themselves aren’t a reputable one yet Yes the interview is well detailed. ✘ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html Yes well established news source of which subject has no influence over as they are a secondary source. Yes reputable news source with reputation for fact checking & prescence of editorial oversight Yes article on subject seems to be well detailed. ✔ 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}}.

The USA today source is definitely sigcov and would count towards GNG. You're right to be worried about Wikipedia:BLP1E but that's something to worry about in looking at all sources/information not any given one source. Arguably the CNN clip - him speaking - is also not independent. You are correct it does not count towards GNG. HuffPo cite is a bit of a trick question. The HuffingtonPost is frequently not reliable. But in this case it's merely using an Associated Press report. The AP is reliable so this cite would count towards GNG. Good job on Geni. I see you fixed Vanity Fair, good job on that. Frontline is definitely an RS - a quick look at its Wikipedia article would help you there. But you are correct it can't be used for GNG because it is an interview. Yes to the Independent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

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.



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 it appears to be an Instagram page of the subject hence it is not independent of her influence. No as she is directly involved with this source it would invariably mean it is not reliable because it is subject to her control. No it shows photos of the subject but does not discuss her in significant coverage. ✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-us-open-hingis-20170910-story.html Yes well established news source & subject does not seem to have influence over their publications Yes reputation for fact checking & is considered a reliable news source as per community consensus. No having read the article we observe that subject is not discussed significantly. ✘ No
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=4x3fQ920EUMC&pg=PA197&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Yes it is a secondary source independent of its subject’s dictations. No source is a book where the author themselves may not be prominent in their field hence we cannot take their word. No subject is merely mentioned & not discussed significantly. ✘ No
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/21171438/tennis-another-twist-bizarre-career-martina-hingis Yes we’ll read & reputable news source which have a reputation for fact checking & possess editorial oversight. Yes established prominent news source on sports related activities. No having re-observed the article it does discuss her significantly but only pertaining to a drug related problem & not what may described as significant coverage. ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/nov/01/tennis Yes secondary source of which subject has no direct/indirect control over Yes established news source with reputation for fact checking. No they do discuss her but mention a case of a failed drug test & that wouldn’t be counted as significant coverage. ✘ 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}}.

Good analysis of Instagram. The LA Times bit is complicated (winning a grand slam obviously matters for notability) but I think your assessment is well thought out.The ESPN article is significant coverage so would count towards GNG. I think your analysis of the guardian is reasonable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Barkeep49 although I have completed the assignment I’d like to point out that the very first subject of this assignment (on sourcing) which is Frank Lloyd Wright may have an issue/fault with the way it has been formatted here. As even though I have provided a Y or an N it does not reflect in the column (in visual editing mode) but if you check it in the source editing mode you’d observe that I have provided a Y or an N & provided my rationale for picking either. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Captain 👨‍✈️ I hope real life work hasn’t been so stressful.Celestina007 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I just came back to finish this out - you've been so patient. However, before I do that please read the feedback I left on the first three and take another look at the remaining tables. I think you've made a couple of mistakes throughout and rather than repeating the feedback let's see if you can learn from those. I will then be more prompt in my responses as I've looked at the work you'd done already. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Fixing ping Celestina007. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, thank you for being patient as well, if you obseve my activities thoroughly throughout this month you’d notice I myself have been quite inactive, reason being that a colleague of mine recently lost his life & I was appointed president of the community by the organization I work for to oversee all things pertaining to his burial but regardless I’m back now. Furthermore thank you for the link to the perennial & reliable sources it has been of great help to me & you’d notice I’ve made a few corrections in the last two entries. The essence of NPP school can never be overestimated & it’s value is second to none. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear about the loss, Celestina007. I do notice your revisions were a real improvement. Good job. I think we're still not quite where we need to be with GNG but we'll have some more time to practice this soon. See my comments about the remaining two. I'll look to put up our next area for work in a day or two. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, a great weekend to you captain 👨‍✈️. I’d always be here & ever ready to work & take corrections. Celestina007 (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Drafts 2[edit]

Now that we've done some work around notability and sourcing it feels like a good time to revisit some drafts. As with last time, for each draft below say what you would have done if you had found these while doing New Page Patrol. I have not really read much beyond the LEAD sentence so who knows what we'll find. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: it looks like you might not have seen the above. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I can observe it has been accepted but here is my take on it; if I obseve this in the New Pages feed, I would invariably proceed to welcome the new user to this collaborative project & affixed to this welcome message would be links to imperative policies & guidelines a new user should familiarize themselves with before creating articles. Now on the article itself I would take it to an AFD as it appears to be a website that has been relatively discussed, but not with in-depth & in reliable sources as such does not qualify per general notability guidelines. Furthermore I shall also take note of the article creator as they appear to be a single purpose account. Celestina007 (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The SPA aspect is important in a situation like this. Good pick-up. Ultimately I think this was approrpiately accepted from AfC. Most or all top-level-domains are going to be notable. My guess is that this would be overhwelmingly kept at AfD. Your analsysis about the sourcing is good, but this is a nice example of having to look at the whole of the situation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Captain Barkeep49, sorry real life has been quite busy & I forgot to thank you earlier on for pointing this out for me. It appears to be a very salient piece of information.Celestina007 (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If i come across such article on the New Pages Feed I shall proceed to tag with a CSD under G11 as it appears blatant promotional article created by a sleeper account that has a vested interest & an undeniable WP:COI with the subject of their article. In the case a G11 is denied stating article is “not irredeemably promotional” I shall proceed to take it to an AFD as the organization itself does not possess WP:CORPDEPTH & does not satisfy WP:CORP.Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Good job. Your G11 might or might not get accepted but I agree AfD would be the next place to go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, This is an interesting one because a subject is considered notable if they have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources, keeping this in mind, I know subject of article is quite notable but however I shall tag the article with “Resumé” seeing as the article is written as though it were a curriculum vitae of subject’s achievement & Wikipedia is not LinkedIn hence I shall also affix “copyedit” tag to it.Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Good job with the resume tag. However, you're missing a very important element that shows that the article topic is notable - in fact it's something we've covered already in our work together. With that hint can you figure out what it is? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Barkeep49, most definitely sir. He is notable & worthy of a stand alone article in the encyclopedia because he satisfies at least one criteria under WP:NPROF which is sufficient to establish notability in this specific regard.Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes to NPROF. Which criteria(s) does he meet? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello once again Barkeep49, from my observation it appears as though he qualifies under criterion #6 sir. Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If I came across this in the New Pages feed and it appeared as though it were very recently created as per time factor what I would do is to tag with “sources” or a “ref improve” & include the article to my watch list & if ample time had past & issues indicated by the tags have not been addressed by the article creator I would invariably take it to an AFD because the film does not satisfy the WP:GNG which is sufficient to use as yardstick for articles about films. The “blu ray” source does indeed discuss the movie but it does not appear to be a trustworthy nor reliable source as I can’t see editorial oversight. The “IMDb” source also is not what we can consider to be reliable as anyone may upload any information to that sight. Ultimately IMDb does not have a reputation for fact checking.Celestina007 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree not notable. Holding of further comment until you answer my question above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Also worth mentioning the movie gives no indication of meeting NFILM either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment — Hello & a happy 14th of feb to you Barkeep49, thank you for the ping, I had not seen the new assignments until you pinged me then I had to manually refresh over and over again before the assignments popped up most likely due to poor internet service by my ISP in the last couple of days. I have completed the assignments & i’m ready to take corrections, advices & also ready to tackle more assignments. Celestina007 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hadn't forgotten about you I had just been busy in real life. But I'm back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Content policies[edit]

Article titles[edit]

Please read WP:TITLE and answer the questions below


1. Article name "Hannibal Barca" - Does the article name need to be change? and 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: Okay from what I can observe & based on WP:COMMONNAME & also WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, I’d say yeah it should be changed. Seeing as the the reliable sources provided use just Hannibal, I’d say it should be changed to Hannibal only.Celestina007 (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

checkY Good job. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)



2. Article name "Magic Johnson". Does the article name need to be change? and 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: @Barkeep49, Hmm an interesting one because i’d still point to WP:COMMONNAME in this scenario but in this case to object changing the name. Now, because it is the name he is most commonly known with it should not be changed! so even though “Magic” may not be his real name, he was known throughout his basketball career as Magic Johnson. So based on polices the name is just fine.

checkY yep. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 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: The first part is very much acceptable & is suitable for inclusion, reason being I understand what WP:WELLKNOWN & WP:BLPBALANCE says & know even though somethings portray certain individuals in a bad light as long as there are reliable sources to substantiate claims we are tasked to report both the bad & the good. Although I should mention that TMZ is a shaky “stuck in the middle” source at best, but seeing ESPN used as source to substantiate claims then I am rest assured. Celestina007 (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

On the second part, I think that appears to be grape vine with no reliable sources to substantiate those claims & verifiability is why we are Wikipedia without which we are a second linkedin. So no it is isn’t suitable for inclusion.Celestina007 (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

checkY the unsourced paragraph is indeed inappropriate per our BLP policy. The video being from TMZ and being sourced to TMZ isn't a problem because we are saying what the source is. The problem with a source like TMZ is when we use them as a source to say something in our voice. Does that make sense? Best, 01:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, it does indeed make sense.Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 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: Per WP:DOB this is quite improper as she is a public figure it is not even safe. If it were an unknown figure I’d assume it is/was for promotional purposes. So to answer your question Captain @Barkeep49 this is quite unacceptable.Celestina007 (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what's unacceptable? If you find this unacceptable content what would you do? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thank you captain, now what I find unacceptable is the inclusion of a phone number & invariably if I observed this is an article pertaining to someone of her status, I would go on to remove it without seeking any consensus from anybody & if I observed this in an article about a non notable person or organization i may G11 the article.Celestina007 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
checkY For personally identifiable information like that you should actually get it oversighted (the information here is actually for the White House so no actual problem). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, It appears I have completed this friday nights assignment & I’m ready to take corrections sir.Celestina007 (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Look for the next assignment soon (hopefully later today). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: see assignment below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

Please read WP:NPOV and MOS:PUFF. Point out the WP:NPOV words/pharses and rewrite the paragraph in Questions 5 & 6 from a neutral point of view.

5. 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: She is a a boxer who became a professional boxer at the age of 19 after emerging successful in an amateur fight on December 14, 2013 where she won the fight in 20 seconds. She would go on to fight under XXX promotion on February 2014.Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The Puffery: “She is a brilliant boxer with a rare and exceptional beauty” | “she destroyed her opponent in 20 seconds” | “Her talent and marketability made her a fighter to watch right out the gate”Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
checkY well done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


6. 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: He is an actor who was born in Veliko Tarnovo and began working in the film industry from a tender age of 14 and has featured in 44 films.Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The Puffery: He is a popular, acclaimed Bulgarian actor.Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
checkY "tender age of" is definitely puffery. Featured in could also be puffery depending on the actor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


7. 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: WP:DUE is imperative simply because of avoiding the inclusion of minority views which may not be imperative because it is spearheaded by a minority of the population which invariably might be an unpopular opinion & also for the sake of neutrality. Now For the sake of “balance” If reliable sources say a certain incident took place, for the sake neutrality it is our duty to ensure all accounts are reported but as stated above we are to avoid certain details in an article if they are undue.Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

checkY Yes neutrality says we need to ensure all accounts are reported. But it also says we don't need to give equal coverage to everything. Just as important as ensuring we give due coverage is to make sure we don't give undue coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello captain @Barkeep49, thank you for the corrections & I am excited to tackle the next assignments you may have for me.Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

No original research[edit]

Please read WP:OR and WP:NOT and answer the questions below
8. In your own words, why is Wikipedia not a platform for publishing original research?
  • Answer: Original research is not our norm in this community because in this collaborative project we deal with reliable sources for the sake of verifiability. original research can not be substantiated with reliable sources hence we cannot verify such with reliable sources so that’s a no no for us.Celestina007 (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
checkY Pretty much. We rely on reliable secondary sources to tell us what is verifiable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


9. 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: No Captain. No original research is a core of our collaborative project & as such I can’t see a scenario where an original research is appropriate.Celestina007 (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

checkY It's important to note that translations and simple math don't count as original research. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


10. See this video and write an article paragraph that properly presents claims supported by the source.

Answer: From the video above we can say this;

  • Islam does not support wearing of Jeans by either males or females because the quaran has provided a clear & precise manner in which a Muslim must appear as pertains to dressing so for either gender, anything revealing, tight & colorful is not allowed so by direct consequence jean clothing are not allowed in Islam.Celestina007 (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much. I would also source it back. So "According to Sh. Shady Alsuleiman Islam does not supporting wearing of Jeans..." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability[edit]

Please read WP:V and answer the questions below
11. 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"? and why?
  • Answer: This is tricky as it goes several ways, the first is; even if we know for sure that Mr.A has 3 sons but no reliable source can be found to substantiate that claim we are not to change anything but leave the article saying he has two sons as it is. Now secondly if in the case there are multiple reliable sources giving conflicting information where some claim he has two sons & others say 3, due to WP:NPOV we are to include both information in the article. Thirdly we may change it to 3 sons if the subject has expressed dissatisfaction over the misinformation on his Wikipedia & has written officially to the WP:OTRS.Celestina007 (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
checkY You are looking at the right overall issues. I'm not sure how an OTRS request would play out here but I'm glad to see you note it. Paramount to how we edit is the idea of "verifiability not truth". If we don't have good sourcing for it, even if it is true, we cannot say it. So if our sources say 2 sons and he really has 3, we're going to say 2 sons. This is part of us being a tertiary source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks for pointing this out.Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Captain Dearest @Barkeep49, it appears I have completed your assignments. I’m sorry I submitted the assignments late.Celestina007 (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I'd like to do another round of drafts with you. Can you confirm you'll have availability to do 3-5 of these with-in a 24 hour period? I try not to let these sit as "under review" for too long. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, yeah! Hit me with ‘em I’m available.Celestina007 (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Drafts 3[edit]

Draft:Brendan Scannell

Okay @Barkeep49, the following are my analysis.

  • Answer: Subject of the article is an actor that does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Many of the sources used in the article does not discuss the actor directly & a before I conducted shows general notability guidelines are not met. Furthermore at least one source used in the article has been considered unreliable by the community. Ultimately I would nominate the article for deletion.Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Not disagreeing with you necessarily, Celestina007 (I haven't really looked at the sources) but the article claims two leading TV roles (Heathers, Bonding) plus a film role. How does your analysis fit with NACTOR? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, from WP:NACTOR we can obseve this; Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions & from that we can conclude, a main character in just two TV series does not exactly qualify as “significant roles in multiple notable films nor multiple TV shows & that’s my candid opinion on this captain.Celestina007 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
So this is very borderline. I'm not sure what I would do if I found it in mainspace but I think I would mark it reviewed. You have the two roles - which is on the low side but frequently enough to survive AfD. You have a profile in GQ which is very high quality. You have a couple other sources that aren't great on their own but does suggest something about his comedy [1] [2]. All in all I think he falls on the notable side of the line but wouldn't argue with someone who felt otherwise. I accepted the draft but didn't mark it as reviewed and so I'm curious what a different NPP will do. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Draft:The London Golf Club
  • Answer: Formalities aside, such as welcoming the new editor & all norms to take when addressing a new editor. My take on the article would be this; Assuming I am an AFC reviewer I would ultimately accept this article because when we obseve WP:NGEO or better still; from WP:GEOLAND we know they basically point to general notability guidelines & I can observe from a “before” & Sources used in the article that the article’s topic is notable & as an NPP I can’t see any notable red flags.Celestina007 (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes to notable. Would probably look at this one under GNG rather than NGEO however. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 yes captain, I do know this from your teachings earlier on & that’s why I pointed this out above where I said I would ultimately accept this article because when we obseve WP:NGEO or “better still; from WP:GEOLAND we know they basically point to general notability guidelines”
So accepting things for the right reasons is important. A different golf club might not qualify for GNG and shouldn't be automatically accepted under NGEO. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, you are most correct my Captain.Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Rowan richie
  • Answer: As a New Pages Patroller I would nominate this article for deletion because subject of the article is a journalist does not meet WP:JOURNALIST & would also proceed to explain to the editor why creating a page for a family friend, boss, colleague, or themselves is considered a WP:COI & why they are generally not encouraged in this collaborative project.Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes. For an article title like this, I always check the properly cased name (in this case Rowan Richie). Sometimes this can be a sign that something has been deleted before and a person is trying to avoid attention (or a salting). Not true here but something to pay attention to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: Each time we do drafts you're getting better. This is great to see. Below is a new area for us to begin work on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion - Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD)[edit]

There are many criteria of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Here we discuss (1) General criteria (G1-G14), (2) Article criteria (A1-A11) and R2.
Please do the following
  1. If you haven't yet, please enable WP:TWINKLE. Then make sure its CSD log is active by going to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and checking "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations"
  1. Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in your computer.
  2. Install CV-revdel and after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

General criteria[edit]

1. Please review (G1-G14) at General and answer the following questions in your own words.


No Criterion When should it be applied? Mentor comments
1 G1 This is used on articles that are literally incomprehensible & are not plausible to reasoning. Yes. Important to note that foreign language does not make it nonsense.
2 G2 This is used on articles where the editor in most cases are new to Wikipedia & have created an article that appear as though he/she is trying/testing out his/her editing skills. It's most likely someone new to Wikipedia but doesn't have to be.
3 G3 This applies when an article is obviously a hoax & also great vandalism. Yes. Does not apply to articles about hoaxes only when the article itself is a hoax.
4 G4 When an editor recreates a page deleted via an AFD & the newly created one is significantly similar to the one deleted via the AFD. Yes. But it can be any XfD not just AfD. Does not apply to CSD or PROD.
5 G5 This applies when a banned &/ blocked user create an article within the time frame of their ban &/ block. Yes.
6 G6 These pages deleted for technical reasons. Like what? (For clarity go ahead and reply in "When should it be applied")
Barkeep49 normally used for maintainance related issues that would not be controversial.
7 G7 When an editor has asked that a page they created be deleted. Yes. It's when they created it and are the sole author (e.g. no one else did substantial content on it).
8 G8 This applies when, for example a talk page is dependent on an article & that article no longer exists, A G8 is used.


This isn't really in your own words. Can you give an example of when G8 is used?
Barkeep49 I shall give an example involving myself. I worked very extensively with CSD’s & whenever a page I CSD is deleted an admin goes on to delete the talk page also. The reason being that the talk page depends on an article “A” that no longer exists because it has been deleted. Yes.
9 G9 This is specially done by the wikimedia foundation who reserve the rights to delete any page they want to see deleted. Yes.
10 G10 This applies to attack pages in which the editor In question creates a page deliberately for the sake of attacking the article’s subject or objects. Attack pages must be G10’ed immediately it is observed in the New Pages Feed. Yes
11 G11 When an editor creates an article for the sole purpose of blatant promotional purposes & the article is irredeemably promotional a G11 Yes
12 G12 Used for pages where an editor has copied an article from a copyrighted website & has pasted it word for word in an article It doesn't have to be word for word. It can be nearly word for word. Or the words changed slightly.
13 G13 This applies when a draft hasn’t been abandoned for a period of 6months. Although, if the draft has been completed & it’s about a subject who clearly passes notability guidelines I see no reason why I can’t move the page to mainspace on their behalf Yes
14 G14 This are for unnecessary dab pages. What makes a dab page unnecessary?
Barkeep49, more than one reason but predominantly it is used when a supposed dab page links to just one page.

Article and redirect criteria[edit]

1. Please review A1-A11, R2, and R3 criteria at WP:CSD#List of criteria and answer the following questions in your own words.


No Criterion When should it be applied? Mentor comments
1 A1 This is applied when the content of an article is not sufficient enough to help specify the subject of the article.
Barkeep49, I shall use an example to buttress my point; if i observed an article in the new pages feed that read “She attended Harvard business school” an A1 would apply as although there is indeed content, it isn’t sufficient to identify the subject of the article.
 Like what? (Again please respond in When should it be applied)
@Celestina007: that's basically correct. However, if the article had a person's name and had "She attended Harvard business school" that is not an A1 anymore. That's an A7. The title would have to be something generic in this hypothetical.
2 A2 This applies when a non English article appears on the English Wikipedia but has similar content in a different wikimedia project. Yes
3 A3 This applies to articles with no content none whatsoever. Yes - but it really means no content
4 A4 One & the same as A3 Sorry about that. Got carried away and didn't remove criteria which doesn't exist.
5 A5 This applies to articles that have been brought from another wiki.

Barkeep49, for example when an article exists in wiktionary & it is imported from there & made into an article. An A5 would very much be applicable.

Not quite. Can you try again?
Yes. This basically applies to Wikitionary and WikiSources exclusively. Most other wikis are different language encyclopedias which is applicable under A2.
6 A6 One & the same as G10 (attack page) n/a
7 A7 This applies when an editor of an article does not exactly show in the article how or why subject of the article is notable. A7 is used for organizations, people, animals. But Cannot ever be used for schools anyway. Good to note about schools.
8 A8 One & the same as G12. n/a
9 A9 Applies when an article is about a non notable musical recording in which the singers of those songs are themselves not all that notable but in short an A9 is used for songs with no credible claim of significance. Yes
10 A10 This applies to articles that are new but in many significant ways resemble an already existing article. Yes but it needs to really resemble the existing article.
11 A11 This applies to articles that are unreal & are obviously invented in the mind of the editor who created the article. Yes. What's the difference between this and G3?

Barkeep49, there are several differences but the most imperative is; A G3 is applied when an article is created for the purpose of deliberately misinforming the readers whilst an A11 is used when from the start the article creator declares that the article is unreal &/ invented by them and there is no credible claim of importance. Other differences are; an A11 cannot be used on a draft whilst a G3 can be used on both drafts & other articles on Mainspace falling under the G3 category.Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

12 R2 This applies generally to redirects that redirect from one namespace to a different one Yes
13 R3 This applies to newly created redirects from unreasonable typographical errors &/ article titles . Yes

Barkeep49 thanks. I’m done with the assignments of the day.Celestina007 (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: a few followup questions for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, hello captain, I have successfully provided answers to your questions & im ready to take corrections.Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: You're missing an answer to my question about A11. Make sure to answer that even though I'm going to post the next assignment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenarios[edit]

For each scenario say what you would do if you found the article described. For scenarios 1-3 and 9 all the names are made-up and should not be looked at outside of the training environment. There are a lot of scenarios to get to but we will start with these 10.

Scenario 1

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:

John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.
  • Answer: Report the user name & go on to tag the page with a G10.Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
checkY G10 is crucial. I saw you earlier included A7 which is also correct. Barkeep49 (talk)
Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text

'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.
  • Answer: Report the username as it appears to be promoting an organization he/she is closely related to & would tag with a G11.
checkY Barkeep49 (talk)
Scenario 3

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text:

'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 500 subscribers on YouTube.
  • Answer: I know this is hypothetical question but I shall answer it as practical as possible. First I shall Perform a “before” because I am tasked with this duty as an NPP & when I discover what I already thought in my mind, which was that “he wouldn’t be notable” I would carry out my second task which is to take the article to an AFD because subject of article fails WP:NMUSIC, ANYBIO & GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This is actually a pretty typical A7 these days. Your idea of doing a quick search is the right impulse but there is no claim that, if true, would qualify him to have an article. Some much larger number of subscribers would be a credible claim of significance.
Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:

Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.
  • Answer: A G2 is applicable. As we can obseve the editor signing in his/her article, this means they do not exactly understand how the editing process occurs hence merely testing out their editing skills. I shall communicate with the editor & let him/her know why I have tagged their page with a G2, reason being that; they are most likely newcomers & I would not want to bite them.Celestina007 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
So this is my change to a "famous" speedy deletion "gotcha" question. Googling Bazz Ward lemmy gets you The Nice which gives some hint as to what's going on. This isn't G2 - nothing really testing going on. It has a better claim to A3 for attempting to communicate with the subject. For some speedy deletions if you tag something you will get different administrators doing different things. And then on appeal you'll have a divide over what the right thing to do is. This is one of those. But the important thing, as you noted in scenario 3, is to consider doing a small BEFORE even when you don't strictly have to. Barkeep49 (talk)
Scenario 5

A user creates an article Marks v. Shoup with the following content:

Under the law of Oregon which was in force in Alaska when the seizure and levy of the plaintiff's goods were made by the defendant as marshal of Alaska under a writ of attachment, that officer could not, by virtue of his writ, lawfully take the property from the possession of a third person, in whose possession he found it.
  • Answer: The texts in article does not specifically identify what or who they are referring to so invariably an A1 would be applicable here.Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The article title gives you some hint as to what the context is. Take another try at this one. Barkeep49 (talk)
Barkeep49 After close observation it appears as though an A5 could be applicable here as a similar article appears to be on Wikisource. A G12 might have been applicable but it appears as though the website in which this was taking from is not copyrighted.Celestina007 (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: Honestly this was about the G12 (which as you note doesn't apply). Hadn't even thought that there might be an A5. Good catch. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.


  • Answer: I shall check if or not a similar article is present in a different wikimedia project making use of the similar foreign language if it is available I shall use an A2. But if the article is not present in any other wikimedia project I shall use the “Not English” & include it in the list of pages requiring translations to English.Celestina007 (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
checkY Very strong answer. Barkeep49 (talk)
Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.

  • Answer: If he/she blanks the page then invariably there are no contents & as direct consequence I would tag it with an A3.Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It's really a G7. A3 would not apply because there was content just isn't anymore. Barkeep49 (talk)
Scenario 8

A user creates an article which is an identical copy of another article on Wikipedia.

  • Answer: I shall tag it with an A10.Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
checkY Barkeep49 (talk)
Scenario 9

A user with the name "WikiRockers" creates the following article 

Phabricators are Fabulous is the debut single of an exciting new group called the WikiRockers.


  • Answer: appears to be a promotional article for a non notable musical recording & music band by an affiliate of the band hence I shall Tag the Page with an A9.
checkY
Scenario 10

A user creates an article and 5 minutes after it was created the article only has a single category with no other text.

  • Answer: Many possibles outcomes with this one. Firstly I’d perform a “before” & if article’s subject is notable I shall tag the page with an “improve categories” and if ample time has past without issues indicated have been left unattended to. I would draftify the article. An A1 may apply here as well.Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
So in this case the best answer is 5 minutes isn't enough time and you should just wait. A1 generally is thought to have a 10 minute minimum and that 10 minute minimum is a good idea all around. After that your answer is a good one. Barkeep49 (talk)

Barkeep49, Captain i have completed the assignment of the day. Celestina007 (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: see comments above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: for scenarios 11-13, and 15-19 all names are made-up and should not be looked at outside of the training environment. Also assume that any URLs are working rather than made-up. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 11

A user creates an article Larry Footy with the following wikisource (in other words it properly displays in the article): 

{{Infobox football biography
 |name = Larry Footy
 |birth_place = [[Leeds, England]]
 |currentclub = [[Oxford City]]}}
  • Answer: Both A7 & A3 can be applicable in this scenario.Celestina007 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
So A3 is not applicable. It says this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox. Oxford City is a notable football club, and indeed some of its players are blue links which is more than enough for A7. So this is a case where no speedy deletion criteria applies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 12

A user with the name Gamerfan123 creates the following article: 

GamerCon is an annual event held in the garage of Shelly Sony. Last year 10 people attended - a record. This year's event will be held October 19-21.
  • Answer: a G11 is most applicable here. Furthermore if only ten people attended the show then it most likely isn’t a notable event hence an A7 for a non notable event) can be applicable here.Celestina007 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
checkYThis is what an A7 will look like much of the time these days. G11 is possible but A7 is strong. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 13

A user creates the article HomeTown Pizza with the fact ollowing content: 

HomeTown Pizza is a local pizza maker. It has been open since 2004. Its most popular topping, according to the local paper, is pepperoni 

References
1.^ localalnewspaper.com/hometownpizza/profile.html
  • Answer: “(Db-inc)” under A7 would be applicable because the article does not show or describe why & how this organization is notable.Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
checkY
Scenario 14

A user Someguy54321 makes the following article and 3 days later gets community banned for repeatedly operating a bot without approval. 

Cecilia Rich is a state senator in the New Hampshire House of representatives.
  • Answer: An A10 would be applicable here & not a G5 because he/she created the article prior his or her ban/block.Celestina007 (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
checkYIt is indeed an A10. When I originally created this there was no article on her and it was to focus on the G5 but you are correct it now exists and is an A10. Good find. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 15

User:PhilHDoct creates the following article at Solar Panel 2.0: 

Phil Doct has created a new solar panel which will increase energy output from existing solar panels by 30%. He was granted a patent on this invention on May 15.
  • Answer: Appears to be an autobiography & I would tag with an A7.Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Why is being an autobiography an a7? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Hmm, I believe I have come across a policy or a guideline, I believe this should be WP:AUTO, in which we are given a standing order to “A7 any Autobiography” but I stand to be corrected as I cannot quite remember for sure which policy/guideline said that. I do not want to “cheat” by researching before answering any questions because I wholeheartedly believe that is self deceit.Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: You should always "cheat" by researching answers. It's not cheating after all as we can always look things up before taking an action on wiki. I know that I frequently am checking policies, even policies I know really well before taking actions. So feel free to cheat and see if you can find the answer to the policy you were referring to. :) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Okay I give up! I’ve been searching all day for the policy/guideline that mandates any autobiography to be “A7’ed” because I promise you I know I have come across it at least twice last year December but for some reason I can’t seem to locate it anywhere. But I’d answer your question regardless from my experience & residual knowledge. Even having observed WP:AUTOBIO it is implied but not mandated that an autobiography would most likely be taking to an AFD or speedy deleted reason being that autobiographies are not encouraged in this collaborative project because autobiographies are in most cases always biased & do not adhere to WP:NPOV. In all autobiographies a WP:COI is present & when one has a COI with his/her article’s subject it is the norm in this encyclopedia that they don’t edit the page but rather suggest edits in the talk page of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
So long story short is that it is an A7 - it makes no credible claim of significance. However it's important to note that just because somethig is an autobiography doesn't make it eligible for speedy deletion. it can make it eligible to be draftified but we'll cover that later. Sorry to send you on a bit of a wild chase but doing things for the right things is important for NPP :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 16

A user converts a redirect Tayo into an article with the following wikisource. How, if at all, would it be different if a user made this as a new article? 

[[Tayo the Little Bus|<span style="color: #0088ff;">You: Kill Tayo!!!!!!!!!!! </span><span style="color: #33ff0a;">Rogi: Nooooo You!!!!!!! </span><span style="color: #00a2ff;">Tayo:Help!!!!! Blood, this is my sad</span><span style="color: #ff2600;"> Gani: Call Emergency!!!!!
<span style="color: #0088ff;">You: Kill Gani!!!!!!</span><span style="color: #eeff00;"> Lani:321! Bomb you!!!</span>]]
  • Answer: A tough one I admit. If a user made this into an article, I presume in this scenario an A5 would be most applicable. Although I think a G2 & G1 can be used here. For example a G2 because it appears he/she is testing their editing skills & a G1 because honestly this makes no sense & is almost incomprehensible.Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
So if this was a new article your G2 analysis is great. I took this from the sandbox so it is a literal test edit. However, because it was from a redirect G2 isn't the best course of action. Why not? What should you do instead? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
A tough one I can’t just seem to crack for the life of me. I’d definitely need enlightenment on this particular question.Celestina007 (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The key here is that it was a redirect. So you can undo the edit and revert back to the redirect. Like I said if this was a new article you are 100% correct about G2. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


Scenario 17

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is secondary sourcing present for all statements. 

Acme Inc is a Mumbai based widget company with 1200 employees and 10 million (US) in revenues. They were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote. Their first product was a one inch widget. Acme have won several awards for quality.
  • Answer: A G12 might be applicable here. I would eventually go on to report the username in the end.Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
While he has a clear COI, this is not a G12. The statements are factual and at most that one sentence would need to be removed. And since it's not a rewrite it's not a G12. Also the username is not a problem. See WP:ISU. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Hmmm, if secondary sources are hypothetically present to substantiate each claim, that is; if we are assuming this secondary sources are all reliable & they discuss organization with in-depth significant coverage then I’d proceed to make copyedits in the article to bring it to acceptable encyclopedic standards.Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Good. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 18

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is sourcing to the company's website present for all statements. 

Acme Inc is the premier award-winning Indian widget company. Located in beautiful Mumbai, the company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues. In a flash of inspiration brilliant inventor Wiley C Oyote started the company in 2015. Their first product revolutionized widgets and amazingly each new product has been even more impressive. Acme has shown themselves to be the best in the business and only has the greatest things ahead of them. "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.
  • Answer: A G11 would be applicable here as we can obseve an abundant use of promotional tone.Celestina007 (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
checkY Exactly. This is the G11 version of Scenario 17. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 19

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. 

Acme Inc is an award-winning[1][2] Indian widget company. The company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees[3] who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues.[2] We were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote.[3] Our first product was a one inch widget.[4] Acme has become an important widget manufacturer.[3] "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.[4] 


==References==
1.^ Indian company customer reviews. http://www.indiancustomers.com/Acme
2.^ Reporter, A. "Acme Wins Award". Mumbai Newspaper. October 20, 2018.
3.^ "Why Acme" acmewidgets.com
4.^ "Acme brings Widget to Market" www.pressreleases.com
  • Answer: looks like it was lifted from a copyrighted website so a G12 might applicable here.Celestina007 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Well since I made this up I can assure you it's not a G12. Talk about whether it's a G11 or not and why. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I’m sorry I’ve been away for so long, but I’m happy to be “back to the academy”. Now straight to business, I believe this is quite an advert & promo article but it may not necessarily qualify for a G11. My major concern in the article would be “Acme has become an important widget manufacturer. "If you want widgets, you want Acme" but again this is reporting verbatim what the chief marketing officer said & in such cases as an NPP reviewer id Copyedit as much as I can & make the article as encyclopedic as can be by adjusting the articles “Tone” a few wordings here & there & ultimately deleting entirely certain statements I find blatantly promotional. A promo/advert looking article? Yes! but does it meet G11? In my opinion I don’t think it does as it is not irredeemably promotional.Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Excellent analysis Celestina007. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 20

An editor creates a redirect titled "Sittin Chapel" pointing at Sistine Chapel

  • Answer: An R3 is applicable.
checkY
Scenario 21

An editor creates a redirect titled "Bornio" pointing at Borneo

  • Answer: An R2 is applicable.
It's not cross-namespace so I'm guessing you meant R3. And this is a plausible typo so it's an OK redirect and should be marked patrolled. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction captain.Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 22

An editor creates a redirect titled "St Augustine," pointing at St. Augustine

  • Answer: An R2 is applicable
Nope. This is another good redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction here.Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 23

An editor creates a redirect titled "New Joyzee" pointing at New Jersey

  • Answer: An R3 is applicable
checkY Yes. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Scenario 24

An editor creates a redirect titled "Caltary" tagged with {{R from misspelling}} pointing at Calvary

  • Answer:An R3 is applicable.
Why? Best, 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I believe this is an R3 because from my understanding of what an R3 is, we know it applies to recently created redirects from implausible typos & misnomers.Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I’m done with the assignments issued to me by you.Celestina007 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: can you give Scenario 5 another look? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, hello, hope real life work hasn’t been too stressful.Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Thanks for the email. I had been largely away from Wiki and have only resumed nomral activity in the last day. Comments and follow-ups above. One general comment: have you ever heard the expression "When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail?" I think you might have thought that because this is about speedy deletion everything could be speedily deleted. An important lesson here is that frequently Speedy Deletion is not the right tool. Caution is needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello Captain @Barkeep49:, thank you for being patient with me. Due to the mandatory lockdown issued by the federal government of Nigeria to Lagos state (where I happen to reside) in response to the Covid19 pandemic, ironically instead of having enough time to edit 24/7 non stop, I find myself making homemade sanitizers & distributing it to the less privileged who clearly cannot afford to purchase branded sanitizers hence it has greatly affected the amount of time I have for Wikipedia. But regardless I’ve decided to create and maintain an equilibrium between both activities(editing Wikipedia & sharing of sanitizers) & continue from where we stopped. If you observe above, I have to the best of my ability responded to all pending questions I hadn’t answered prior going AWOL to attend to humanitarian activities. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear about how the pandemic has effected you. I am glad we can continue. I've responded above. I think there's just one place for you to circle back and then we're ready to move on to the next task. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Barkeep49, Hello Captain dearest, I have answered question #15 to the best of my ability & I’m ready to take corrections & tackle further challenges you may have for me. Celestina007 (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation and paid editors[edit]

Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question
11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?
  • Answer: @Barkeep49, We spot a COI editor by their edit pattern which usually consists of creating an article for friends, families, place of work, place of worship & also by the use of WP:PEACOCK terms they use in creating this article. Now as for a Paid editor we easily identify them by their fixation on creating articles which are often about non notable persons. Both COI & PAID editors are usually single purpose accounts as they have a vested interest & a financial stake (Paid editors mainly) when the articles go live.Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Good answer. To that I would also add usernames are often a key indicator of a COI (e.g. one that indicates an AUTO as in our discussion above). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


12. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?
  • Answer: @Barkeep49 I would go to their talk page & converse with them by directing them to WP:COI. Then I shall try as much as can be to convince he/she as to why COI editing is frowned upon in this collaborative project & would tell them it is good practice to publicly declare their COI & would further proceed to tell them that rather than edit the article directly it is good practice to suggest edits in the talk page of that article & other editors without a conflict of interest would make the ncecessary changes. But If they refuse to take corrections and insist on further editing the article they have a clear COI with, I would unfortunately have to report them to the WP:COIBOARD as a last resort.Celestina007 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The correct answer, especially if the COI has declared, can also sometimes be to WP:DRAFTIFY which we will be getting to next. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


13. Please read WP:PAID. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor?
  • Answer: Barkeep49, I am against paid editing in any form no matter how mild but I understand policies & guidelines do not necessarily rebuke paid editing so if I happen to come across an editor I suspect has a financial stake in the creation of an article, I’d proceed to advise them to declare their employers & make this public knowledge. Furthermore @Barkeep49, I would also tell them that it’s good practice to publish their articles via “Articles For Creation” rather than they publish it themselves to mainspace. In the event that they don’t take my advise i’d be more than happy to take them to an WP:ANI to report them & hopefully they get blocked.Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest going something stronger than good practice. Leaving edit summaries is good practice. PAID editors using AfC is a bit stronger than that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I’m excited we are making progress & I’m also glad to say that I have attempted the assignments above & im more than ready to take corrections & tackle future challenges if there might be any. Thanks captain. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion & alternatives to deletion[edit]

We just looked at articles which meetWP:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) whereby the the articles are deleted relatively quickly. Now we are going to work on what actions should be taken for those articles do not fit under the CSD criteria but do not meet relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia.


Please read WP:PROD, WP:BLPPROD, WP:MERGE, WP:DRAFTIFY, WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:REDIR, WP:AFD and answer the following questions. (Provide links and hisdiff as needed.)


1. Under what circumstances do we propose deletion (PROD) a page and why do we do that?
  • Answer: PRODing a page is done when the deletion of the said page would be uncontroversial & also when the article doesn’t meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Furthermore we also prod a page in order to use it as shortcut to the AFD process . Celestina007 (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC


2. What should we do before we PROD a page? And what should be considered during a nomination?
  • Answer: Before proding a Page we should check whether or not there is a real reason to prod the page. We furthermore should check the said article for vandalism. Barkeep49 As per your question on what to be considered during nomination I believe as an NPP it wouldn’t be a bad idea to do a before check and obseve the article’s history to see if it has been PRODDED before as we can’t prod an article twice.Celestina007 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, prior to PROD'ing you do need to do a WP:BEFORE. And yes it should be used for uncontroversial articles that do meet a WP:DELREASON but not a speedy deletion reason. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


3. What is the criteria when nominating a BLPPROD? If we choose not to BLPPROD a page what are the alternatives? (give three examples with explanations)
  • Answer: Barkeep49, The criteria affects biographies of individuals which have no sources whatsoever in the article. Alternatives to WP:BLPPROD would be the under-listed
  • To Draftify : especially when it meets DRAFTIFY & if i can observe that the article’s subject is somewhat notable but the problem is with the editors skill & not the subject itself.
  • Take it to an AFD: A Prod tag may be removed by anyone including the article creator itself & after the prod tag has been challenged I shall take it to an AFD which is a place where diverse editors in this collaborative project weigh in & try to argue intellectually with policies and guidelines if or not an article is notable.
  • To CSD the article, If the article falls under any CSD criteria a CSD tag might be plausible.Celestina007 (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
@Celestina007: there were more than 3 questions. Can you see what happened (seems like you might have answered them and then overwritten them later) and restore them so they're all here? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Good answer overall. Except we shouldn't get to BLPPROD if a CSD criteria applies. Instead the third answer is to find a reliable source yourself for the information. Nothing wrong with doing article improvement as you patrol (and some forms of article improvement are even recommended for NPP which we'll get to). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks for the correction. I’m happy to take on new tasks/assignments. Celestina007 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

4. In what circumstances can we nominate an AFD and what step should be done prior such action.

  • Answer: @Barkeep49, thank you for pointing this out for me. We nominate an article for deletion when it doesn’t meet WP:PROD or WP:CSD & before nominating an article for deletion we must perform a WP:BEFORE to check for secondary reliable sources that exists out there. Celestina007 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
checkY. Part of WP:BEFORE is to perform an alternative to deletion. This can get lost in the sea of information about doing research so I just like to highlight it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
5 How long do PROD, BLPPROD and AFD last before it is deleted or decline?
  • Answer: Ceteris Paribus it lasts for 7 days. P.S I have seen certain AFD’s last for 3 weeks(due to several relists) but yeah the norm is usually 7 days.Celestina007 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
checkY For PROD and BLPPROD it could last less than 7 days as someone can decline deletion (PROD) or supply a reliable source (BLPPROD). Less importantly, I would say half (or even a bit more) of AfDs last more than 7 days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
6. Suppose a page has been previously BLPROD and a source was provided. If you still think that article should be deleted, what can you do?
  • Answer: I’d Take it to an AFD, “PROD” it or “CSD” it.Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
PROD is not a good option if it has recently been declined for BLPPROD. And if you were the one to place the BLPPROD tag you hopefully had already considered CSD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
9. What are the reason to WP:Merge a page to another page?
  • Answer: I’d answer this from my residual knowledge. We merge if or when several pages have similar content & are very much interconnected so much that they complement themselves hence we then propose a merge. Furthermore when a page does not our notability standards but is very much similar to an already established article, rather than delete such an article we merge it to the already existing established article. Celestina007 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


10. List at least 6 reasons/examples we may WP:REDIR instead of deleting.
  • Answer:
  • Punctuation issues
  • Alternate spellings
  • Alternate names
  • Wrong Spellings
  • Shortcuts
  • Abbreviations
  • Adjectives and adverbs directing to noun forms
checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
11. Please list the ways that you should search for sources in preparation for a PROD or AfD nomination, including steps which may only be relevant for certain subjects. How does this list change for subjects which are likely to have coverage in languages that you cannot read?
  • Answer: To be honest I don’t think i comprehend this question but I’d answer based on what I assume you are implying.

The under-listed are ways I’d search for sources

My Analysis

  • WP:BEFORE (as per our norm and modus operandi in our attempt to search for reliable sources off wiki a Before must be conduct.
  • WP:FIND
  • Google News Archive.

For SNG’s

For sources written in languages I can’t comprehend

@Barkeep49 In all honestly please do enlighten me on this particular question as I am confused & mentally exhausted. I can’t seem to crack this one.Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, okay it appears I have “cracked it” a little & hopefully they are answers you are expecting to read/see.
That's definitely the right idea. Only resource I would add is that a search of newspapers can be useful in many circumstances. Also this is a Google custom search based off of sources from WP:NPPSG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
12. When can an article be moved to draft space?
  • Answer: If the article meets draftify. If it is a biography having no source none whatsoever. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you please expand your answer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, yes I’d expatiate;
  • Barkeep49, I’d move an article to draftspace predominantly when it meets draftify. Now let me begin with biographical articles, A biographical article might be moved to draftspace when it is under-sourced or not sourced at all. Depending on the article itself as a new page patroller that I am, if i observe the article is about a notable person but not sourced or under-sourced, rather than BLPPROD it i’d move it back to draft-space. Celestina007 (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, Secondly, We also move an article to draftspace if in an AFD it is decided that the article is best suited for drafspace. If a “move to draft-space” is the consensus with no one objecting, I can close the AFD(as a non admin) & move it back to draftspace. Celestina007 (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, I’d also move an article to draftspace when i observe potential notability in the article.
  • Barkeep49, I’d move a notable article back to draftspace if I observe it is being created by a user who has a clear conflict of interest with subject of the article.Celestina007 (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, I’d move an article back to draftspace when in my opinion the article might be notable but just isn’t ready for mainspace, sometimes I see relatively new inexperienced editors creating almost blank articles that do not even qualify as a WP:STUB directly to/on mainspace when they simply could have done so in their draftspace so I’d use my initiative there & invariably I’d move the article back to drafspace but also leave a note on the authors talk page explaining to them why I moved their article back to draftspace & explain to them that a draftspace is a place to work on their article & not on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
checkYThese are all good reasons. One other reason you've mentioned before but not here is around COI/(U)PE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion practice[edit]

13. Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanations for your nominations.

Answer 1: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbi Afrika

  • Reason: Internet personality & Tiktok Star who apparently is a singer but fails to satisfy any notability criteria. She apparently won a non notable award & that doesn’t do much to prove her notability. 19:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
What do you make of the claim that she had a charted song? Also I would suggest including things like "has won non-notable award" in your nomination to make it clearer that your BEFORE found it, you considered and rejected it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks for the ping, I didn’t see these ones to be honest. Moving forward, I believe what the IP address that commented in that AFD said was “Has released singles and was nominated in the highest award show in Balkans” but a before I conducted doesn’t show that any of her songs charted anywhere. Furthermore, above I implied that she had won a non notable award, forgive me, what I meant to say was subject has been nominated for a non notable award. Under WP:MUSICBIO criterion #8 a person may be notable if they have been nominated for a major music award. I don’t consider MAC a major music award. Furthermore she was nominated under the “YouTube star” category (whatever that means) I don’t think the nomination in itself is a nod to her music career but rather a nod to her online YouTube related activities. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Good overall analysis. One place I haven't seen you mention is Wikipedia:Record charts. In this case we only have depreciated sourcing for Serbia which is important when considering a claim for a song charting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I’d be a blatant liar if I told you I had knowledge of such before. Thanks for that I immediately have bookmarked it.Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Elvis

  • Reason : Subject is an actor who falls short of WP:NACTOR, he does appear in a TV series but never in a significant role and in most episodes he is left out. a before (which anyone can conduct on their own) shows subject of article is very far from notability. Although what I’m about to say did not in anyway Influence me to AFD this article, what did was the article content itself & not the editor. The editor who created this page is supposedly a new user joining the encyclopedia only 6 days ago but seems to already understand the encyclopedia without any help from anybody. He gets the markup / formatting correctly. Very suspicious precocious talent in my opinion. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
You conducted yourself well here. Nicely done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anoop Krishnan

  • Reason : non notable actor that doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR & hasn’t been discussed with in-depth significant coverage.Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Reaction to the keep !vote? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, ah this one. Having done a before & even per the article, the actor never took a significant role in the list of movies presented in the article, I see in one he was a shoemaker & in another he was a police officer. Nothing significant per my own analysis. But however the TV series in which he does feature in looks promising but that doesn’t in my honest opinion satisfy criterion #1 from WP:NACTOR. But if another editor feels otherwise then that is the essence of an AFD. For the community to reach a consensus on a given subject of an article. Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Including a bit more of that in your nom statement might be helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonClaire

  • Reason : Non Notable rapper he does have hits on google but they only mention him in passing when he is about to release new music.Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 5: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhairavi Prakash

  • Reason : doesn’t pass WP:BASIC, doesn’t pass WP:GNG both her organization & she herself don’t seem to be notable.
checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


14. Participate in 5 WP:AFD that have no votes other than the nominator's statement. Please provide your reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.

Answer 1: Johnny Rapid (Delete)

  • Reason: Non Notable porn star who doesn’t possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. If I’m correct I think WP:PORNBIO has been rendered invalid so I “tried” him under WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


Answer 2:Cameron Marshall (Keep)

  • Reason : Subject is porno actor who seems to qualify under WP:ANYBIO which provides 3 criteria for entry & fufilling one of them might prove subject may notable. He appears to have won a notable award so my take is a keep. Celestina007 (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you understand the concern about using the porn awards for ANYBIO? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Apparently i’m wrong, as for adult movie stars they are tried under our general notability guidelines if they fail to satisfy it they are presumed to be not notable. My mistake. Celestina007 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


Answer 3: Anthony Tsai Brooks (Delete)

  • Reason : “Notable” for his death asides that I can’t see WP:NPOL being satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


Answer 4: Natural Fibre Park (Delete)

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


Answer 5:Edward C. Ford, Jr. (Delete)

  • Reason : Subject of article does not seem to satisfy WP:NPOL.
checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


15. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons.

Answer 1:Saida Charaf

  • Reson: doesn’t qualify for a CSD & the deletion would be uncontroversial. I also don’t see it being prodded before.
What is your reaction to Phil Bridger's declining of your PROD? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, This is a very interesting question I’m glad you asked. My initial reaction was nothing as you may observe from the page’s history. The editor implied that a common search showed subject of the article satisfied WP:GNG But a before I personally conducted showed me an Instagram page, a Twitter page, a LinkedIn profile and a Spotify page amongst other non English sources. Now seeing that there are non English sources listed in references of the article I optimized the Google Translator which showed that the first reference was a Q & A, obviously this means it isn’t independent of the subject, the second was clearly an unreliable source, the third mentioned her in passing, the fourth isn’t even about her per se, the fifth is a link to a video, the sixth; definitely isn’t significant coverage so it does nothing for WP:GNG. I could go on & on but in summary, at best this is a case of bare notability & my next move should have been to take it to an AFD but I’ve realized that there are certain editors on this collaborative project who (I want to assume not stalk me) but do the inverse of whatever I do or !vote the opposite of whatever I !vote In any given AFD hence i decided not take it to an AFD at that time as I knew Phil would be the first to !vote a “strong keep” even though subject of article per my thorough standard isn’t notable so I decided to disappoint certain editors by keeping calm & not give WP:UNDUE attention to an undue situation. In all i want to assume good faith but that aside, when the time is right I shall take the article to an AFD but as of now I have gone on to affix the notability tag to the article. Celestina007 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Good. It is important that you do your BEFORE in languages besides English. Taking a declined PROD to AfD is often the right step. And as mentioned I almost never PROD when doing NPP because I find they're normally declined so I would just go to AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thank you for this particular response.Celestina007 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2:Antonino Letteriello

  • Reason: The article although almost looking like a blatant promotional one isn’t necessarily one as with a few copyedits it can be cleaned but I’m having major concerns with their notability as a before I conducted doesn’t seem to suggest the subject is notable. A CSD under G11 may have been rejected.Celestina007 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I missed this before but checkY as a good PROD despite it being declined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


16. Nominate 2 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons.

Answer 1: Severin Eskeland (1977-)

  • Reason: Article is about a living in person but cites no sources. Hence qualifies for a BLP PROD. Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
☒N This has external links. External links aren't references but they do disqualify an article from being nominated for BLPPROD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks for the feedback I never knew that an external link rendered a BLP PROD invalid until now. Celestina007 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


Answer 2: Aleksandr Pavlov (politician)

  • Reason: As of now the article is an unsourced biography of a living person but cites no sources.Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
checkY This one did lack sources so it did qualify. However, the person is also clearly notable. So I question if BLPPROD was the right decision per the steps of BLPPROD nominating. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


17.Nominate 2 article for WP:NPPDRAFT and state your reasons. Do not actually move them to draft, just list them below

Answer 1: John Stead (mayor)

  • Reason: Subject of article is notable but only one source was used throughout the article which I’d classify as under sourced for a biographical article but since the article has potential to be notable of which the aforementioned undoubtedly those possess I think it could qualify for an WP:NPPDRAFT as it could still be worked & Sourced up before article is published back to Mainspace.
Historical figures such as Stead are different than BLP. There also was not one but two sources when the article was created. I don't think this one is a good candidate for drafting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


Answer 2: Taiwan Mulan Football League

  • Reason: Article has all the potential to be a notable one but the current state of the article isn’t satisfactory. Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
checkYThis is a much better candidate for NPP Draft. Good job here. Can you go ahead and do a couple more of these just to be sure we're all on the same page.


Shin-Ming Tan

  • An under sourced biographical article about a subject which is notable hence rather than put it up for deletion I have moved it back to draftspace & would go on to leave a personal note on the TP of the editor explaining things to he/she/them. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: 1999 Pacific Curling Championships

  • Definitely is about a notable subject/event but simply is unfit for mainspace as the formatting & sourcing are not up to the encyclopedic standard there’s an “in creation” template attached to the article but per the “in Creation” template; if article creator hasn’t updated the page for several hours of which article creator hasn’t done so in the last three hours the template can be removed & as direct consequence, it definitely does qualify for an NPP Draft. I have removed the template now (but not moved it back to draftspace) per the specific instruction you have given to me. Celestina007 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
At the time you edited this was a good candidate to be draftified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4:2018–19 Club Brugge KV season

  • Potential Notability is observed in the article so rather put it up for any form of deletion an NPPDRAFT is most suitable as the article needs a little bit of sourcing up before it is moved back to mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Good find. I have moved this to draft. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


Barkeep49, thanks for pointing that out, I erroneously deleted the previous questions mistakenly but I have successfully completed the previous assignment given to me by you and the ones that I mistakenly deleted. All is well now. Celestina007 (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Barkeep49, I’m sorry to bother you captain but it seems as though you didn’t receive my initial ping. I have completed the assignments sir. Celestina007 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Great. I will take a look soon. Just a note - trolling is not a speedy deletion reason. The reasons are only the ones we looked at. See Draft:Tolulope Ajayi. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks, I initially would have moved it to draft but seeing as though it was blatant trolling (in my opinion) & great disrespect to the encyclopedia I just used the custom speedy delete option. Moving forward I’d make sure to avoid such pitfalls forthwith. Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, sorry I didn’t ping you immediately I completed the assignment. I checked the time here in Nigeria & checked the time at your region & figured you’d still be asleep. But yeah, I’m done with the tasks you assigned to me.Celestina007 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007 see some feedback/follow-ups above. I am holding off on the remaining feedback for the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I’ve replied your questions & also provided answers to the questions you asked about NPPDRAFT & most importantly acknowledged my shortcomings generally & have learnt from my mistakes.Celestina007 (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: A couple small follow-ups above and then we can move on. I do want to throw out one important caution. It is incredibly easy for new reviewers to over-rely on dratifying articles. Resist this temptation. Moving something to draft is a form of deletion and can be quite controversial. It should not be used as a substitute for taking articles to AfD. Most new reviewers (including me when I was new) fall into this trap so I warn everyone about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, you are very correct, I fall into this trap every now & again but now you’ve mentioned it I’d do my best to avoid such pitfalls in future. Celestina007 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: just confirming you saw the questions/comments under AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Drafts 4[edit]

As before please say what you would do if you found these while doing NPP. I'm hoping that we are getting closer to these being reflective of what we'd really do because we've covered most of the curriculum. Please let me know if you won't be your usual speedy self since I don't want these to sit for long. ​ Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

On Draft:Helderstroom Murders of 1999

  • Answer:Barkeep49, Thanks for the ping. Now on this article as an NPP i’d do a “before search” because the article is badly written & formatted & if one is not careful one may erroneously nominate an article for deletion just because it looks “bad” but as for me I’d do a before search which I have already conducted & it has shown me that this “event” falls short of WP:EVENT & WP:GNG & the subject of the trial case falls short of WP:CRIME & WP:GNG. So in the end I’d unfortunately have to nominate the article for deletion. Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY I'm a little reluctant give the age of the event but ultimately I could not find additional sources (what is in there is high quality there just needs to be more like that). Good job noting that the poor writing doesn't impact whether it's notable. AfD would be the right way to go here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

On Draft:Kevin Andrew Tan

  • Answer:Barkeep49, okay so in short I would G11 this article. My reason is this; this article appears to be a promotional article for a child of a notable person & per WP:NOTINHERITED we know notability cannot be inherited but that’s another story. My concern here is that this article is a resumé, an advert & a blatant promo piece for a non notable person. A WP:BEFORE is somewhat challenging as most google hits are mostly about his father than they are about him. I would have sent the article to an AFD but in my opinion this is blatantly promotional so I believe a G11 tag would be appropriate here. In all seriousness, this article actually belongs to linkedin. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY I would agree if this were in mainspace it should be a G11. In looking at the sources in the article now do you think any help establish notability? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Like I said earlier, the answer is none, no source in the article helps substantiate or show notability of article’s subject. Speaking about the article’s sources, a Bloomberg source I saw caught my attention but having observed the source it was & still is a literal resumé & does nothing to establish notability of subject as required in GNG although we know Bloomberg is a reliable source it isn’t enough in this case. Celestina007 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The two best sources, in my view, in that article are [3] and [4]. How do you see them falling short? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, The two sources per se do not discuss subject of the article with in-depth significant coverage.Celestina007 (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The Inquirer is 650+ words on him. You could maybe argue that [this one is not SIGCOV but even that is pushing it in my view. If there hadn't been the G11 issues this would have been a borderline decision in my view about whether he's notable or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

On Draft:EvolutionX ROM

  • Answer: @Barkeep49, I have been looking at this one carefully for several minutes now & I’m caught between tagging with a G11 & nominating it for deletion as it does the exact things the notability guidelines for websites warn against. An example is using the article for promotional purposes but as observed in the article, the article creator does so severally. Oh well in the end as a/an NPP, I shall tag this also for a G11 as it appears to be a promotional article showcasing the “product” of a non notable person.Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The question with G11 is "Does it need to be fundamentally rewritten?" A test for this is to remove all the promotional material that doesn't belong. Try doing that with the copy I've made and see what you end up with. That can point to whether or not it's G11. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, okay it doesn’t look so blatantly promotional after removing all the promo words. Furthermore I have committed the phrase above "Does it need to be fundamentally rewritten?" to memory as it would be a useful tool when handling G11 speedy tags. The appropriate action would be to take the article to an AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm actually curious what your version with the promo looked like Celestina007. Could you save it so we can discuss it? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I’m actually just realizing that you made a copy of the article & gave me permission to alter the “copied” article. I didn’t realize that before & thought you meant I should just mentally remove the promo words and imagine the article without those words now that I know what you mean my answer to the question is the promotional version is exactly how the article appears right now. I am going ahead to literally delete the promo words used in the article and save it as you have instructed me to do so we can discuss further. Celestina007 (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 checkY Check here & see that I have removed all promo wordings & made the article as neutral as can be hence a G11 can not apply here.Celestina007 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your edits. I actually would remove Statistics also. Not everyone would agree that this qualifies for G11 but I certainly do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

On Draft:Smuggling of Refugees Across the Mediterranean Sea

  • Answer: Barkeep49, There is something fundamentally wrong with this article & that is due to the fact that it contains major original research which isn’t allowed in this collaborative project. A before I conducted shows that the topic “Smuggling of Refugees Across the Mediterranean Sea” in itself, isn’t a notable one. Human trafficking generally is a very notable topic & this collaborative project already has good quality articles pertaining to that subject, hence I don’t see the point of this one, a merger may have worked but since it contains original research i cannot do anything to help the editor. I would go on to use a CSD A10 on the article. The editor/author of the article looks new so I would also communicate to them & explain that original research isn’t allowed in this community after which I’d direct them to basic policies he/she needs to understand before creating any other article(s) in the future. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing what you found as original research (though I did tag it as such after accepting). Can you say which phrases you found were OR? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49,
  • With the increase of civil unrest in the Middle East in the 21st century and changing immigration policies in European countries, there have been never before seen numbers of refugees fleeing their home countries in search of a new life in Europe. With these shifting policies and an influx of people, migrants rely on human smugglers to assist them in illegal border crossings to Europe
  • Because the human smuggling of refugees in the Middle East is such an illegal yet lucrative business, there is very little definite information known about the underground framework of the smugglers. Most of what is known is due to testimonials from refugees or smugglers given to journalists. Celestina007 (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I hear you. Those sentences all lack direct citations. But it is a well cited article so it's not clear if those are OR or are also cited to subsequent sources. It's enough of a reason for a tag. However, you suggested it's A10 which I missed before. A10 of what? I think it's a distinct and notable topic from European migrant crisis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, oh sorry captain that was an oversight on my part, I forgot for a second that the article in question was about refugee smuggling & not human trafficking. My error, an A10 wouldn’t have applied here apparently. Celestina007 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

On Draft:Jim Prospekt

  • Answer: Barkeep49, This I would take to an AFD as the subject of the article is a non notable musician falling short of MUSUCBIO & GNG. My initial instinct was tag it with an A7 but looking at it again I have decided that an AFD is the right call. A before shows only his social media accounts. I would also remove the image from the article as this might be a non free image. Celestina007 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I’ve completed the assignment. I couldn’t do it all yesterday as my access to the internet expired amid attempting the assignments you issued to me & I only just re-subscribed today. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: no worries. There's definitely a lot of improvement between when we first did drafts and now. See the next assignment below. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Tagging[edit]

In this assignment we look at tagging pages for problems. There any many tags available in Wikipedia and we will look at some of them here.

Tagging in the article[edit]

Please read WP:TAGGING and answer the questions below. Please provide explanations in your own words and provide hist diff when applicable.

1. Why do we place tags on the article?

Answer: Barkeep49, We tag an article or articles with certain tags to indicate that the page in question is problematic having one or more issues and needs the attention of an editor to help tackle the problems. Celestina007 (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
2. What does "drive by tagging" mean?

Answer: Barkeep49, I may be answering the questions faster than expected &,that’s because I’m answering from my residual knowledge as I have read WP:TAGGING before now. Okay sorry for the digression, drive by tagging is an act whereby an editor doesn’t really thoroughly vet a page but just on first glance affixes tags & moves on to another article & does the same blunder over & over again without even fundamentally understanding what actually is the problem with a given article. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY Well put. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


3. List 8 common tagging behaviors that should be avoided in an article?

Answer: Barkeep49

  • Over-tagging
  • Premature removal of tags
  • Redundant tags
  • Vague tags
  • Un-constructive tagging
  • Unhelpful tags
  • Disputes over tags
  • Use of wrong tags
checkY to that I will add premature tagging. In a NPP context it can be important to give a reasonable amount of time for an article to be developed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


4. When is it appropriate to remove the tags?

Answer: It is appropriate to remove tags when you observe the problem indicated by the tags are no longer present in the article or if you notice an article with a tag affixed to it & you fix it appropriately you may then remove the tag. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Tag 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed where appropriate tags are needed (please provide links)

checkY No real references but the external links essentially verify all the information. I'd have gone with Template:No footnotes myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY

checkY

I'd have tagged this with something. I don't think I'd have gone with resume. There are pages that are VERY much like resumes, but this generally uses prose (resumes tend to be lists/bullets). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY I'm a big fan of Template:Third-party but more references is obviously also correct. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY

checkY

Here's what this looked like when you tagged. Can you say more about your thought process? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, the three sources provided might prove difficult to verify hence I tagged it with a “Refimprove” so the author of the article might include more sources preferably oninline sources that could easily be verified. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I only put notability tags on pages where I think it is borderline. I don't feel this one way borderline. For things that aren't borderline it's about choosing an appropriate deletion method. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49,  Done all assignments. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

See feedback above Celestina007. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

7. Please read Wikipedia:Categorization and assign 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed to one or more useful categories. You can check similar articles for potentially relevant categories. (please provide links)

@Barkeep49, I have completed the assignment of the day. I should also mention that some of the categories I used are not exactly “the most specific” categories but are the closest to the most specific that are in existence as we can’t add pages to non existent categories. Furthermore I should also say that I have the included the “Default sort” to some of the articles I provided above. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: these all look good. Nice job! Don't be afraid to add more than one category when doing this. Also don't worry about that sock puppet. I've posted the next assignment below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thank you for the feedback. I’d proceed to the next assignment soonest! Celestina007 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Sorting[edit]

8. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:Content assessment and tag 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed with appropriate WikiProject and class types on the articles' talk pages. Please use Rater user script. (please provide links). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Hello, I have completed the assignment of the day. Celestina007 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I haven't taken a look at the rating yet, but I'm going to push you here. All of these articles have at least one other project tag - they're biographies - and most of them have a tag beyond where they're from. See if you can add some more projects to these articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, haha I’ve been pushed I guess. I just completed your “pushing” assignments re-check the articles. Celestina007 (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Much improved. Good job. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Short description[edit]

9. Short descriptions help a reader to identify which search result is most likely to suit their needs. Most mainspace pages should have a description, preferably no longer than 40 characters. Please read Wikipedia:Short description and Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions and provide 10 short descriptions in 10 different articles from Special:Newpagesfeed. Please enable User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper prior making the edits. (please provide links)

@Barkeep49, Hello, I have comepleted the most recent assignment you gave me. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Good job. I tweaked a few of them (military person is probably not the ideal description) but you definitely get the point. I'll put up the next piece somewhat soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 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?
  • Answer: It is important to assume good faith in every scenario except an editor has proven beyond any and all reasonable doubt that they are here to cause mayhem & vandalize if not assuming good faith and not biting the new comers are very much pivotal to the success of the encyclopedia in the sense that new editors come into this collaborative project with a great wealth of knowledge which may never have been known before their joining the encyclopedia. Yes at times new editors may seem disruptive or actually be disruptive, not because they intentionally want to be that but because they simply are new & are currently inexperienced hence it is our duty to guide them properly by providing them with necessary links to relevant policies that would be imperative to their growth. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY I think the end of your answer hits on the most important point - we don't bite so that they stick around. We assume good faith because that's the best way to work in a collaborative encyclopedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
2. How do we deal with a bad faith registered user and how do we deal with a bad faith IP editor?
  • Answer: Generally I think I would probably treat them the same way irrespective of whether one is registered or an IP I mean I ain’t finna be discriminating & that as both are human beings at the other end of the device. Okay except they are have really shown that they aren’t here to build an encyclopedia I would probably just assume good faith with both & probably give them links to relevant policies that might be beneficial to them & if I observe the bad faith practice let’s say it’s vandalism, has continued despite my efforts I’d proceed to issue out soft warnings & if it still persists that’s a game over & id proceed to report them at AIV. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
3. What can we do to welcome and help the newcomers.? (List down 10 different ways/scenario)
  • 1: Use of welcome templates
  • 2: provision of links to relevant policies they would definitely need in order to understand the basics of this collaborative project.
  • 3: Assume good faith always with them
  • 4: We shouldn’t call them vandals & sockpuppets
  • 5: It is good practice to revert a new editor and explain to them why they got reverted instead of reverting them and ignoring.
  • 6: We should be compassionate towards them. The editor Herostratus would always be in my heart because of this.
  • 7: Sign their comments for them. I am yet to see a new editor who magically knew how to sign in their first week.
  • 8: Invite or direct them to the Teahouse.
  • 9: If they make minor errors, it wouldn’t be a idea to help them out.
  • 10:Be gracious. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY
4. In you own words, provide 10 ways to avoid biting the newcomers.
  • 1: Avoid talking to them when you are upset.
  • 2: Using profanities is a capital no
  • 3: Assume good faith
  • 4: Don’t be sarcastic towards them
  • 5: If it is possible leave personal messages on their tp so they know in their hearts that they are talking to human beings
  • 6: Listen to their complaints and grievances and respond to them rather than feel “too big” to pay attention to a newbie
  • 7: Be civil always
  • 8: Don’t be condescending when addressing them
  • 9: Be respectful towards them.
  • 10: If their articles get deleted remind them that their hard work (the article) is never truly deleted & at the appropriate time & for the appropriate reasons their articles may be “refunded”. I know several Indian editors who quit because they felt “their hard work was thrashed” Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY
5. List 5 uncivil behaviors and explain how you would deal with them.
  • 1: For a legal threat, I would bring it to the ANI.
  • 2: For a personal attack, if it’s an established editor, I would reach out to them to explain my grievance if it’s a troll I’d zero my mind & move on. I ain’t finna feed no troll.
  • 3: For Outing, depending on how serious, like say if my home address is made public knowledge i’d report the editor & also contact an oversighter
  • 4: For Harrasment, I’d report the editor/ take the case to the ANI
  • 5: For threats of violence(very hypothetical though) I’d report them to the ANI. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, guess who finished their assignments already? Yeah you guessed right, that’s me.Celestina007 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What about someone who questions your competence and/or interpretation of policy while doing NPP? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
This message made me smile :) Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

AfC Work[edit]

Celestina007, I have added you to the list of participants at Articles for Creation. Please read the instructions of what to do as an AfC reviewer - which shares many of the same responsibilities as doing NPP. Please aks me any questions you might have about the process but when ready select 15 or so articles to review which have not been previously reviewed - AfC articles often are submitted multiple times. Please make sure to use what we've learned about notability, sourcing, and communication while doing this. Post links to articles that you work with through AfC below. Accuracy not speed is very important with this work and is a montra at NPP. While there is a range of discretion when doing NPP/AfC you haven't quite been at the accuracy level I'd have hoped for in our work on drafts; I am hopeful that when given the chance to choose your own articles that we'll see a rise in this accuracy and also know there is no rush to complete this assignment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thanks, I just received this message id get to work as soon as possible.Celestina007 (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Ah, my error! I would be keeping that in mind whilst conducting further AFC reviews. Celestina007 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 4: Draft:Dripz Beats
    • checkY
  • 5: Draft:Bipin Bisht
    • checkY Personally I am not a fan of using G11 on articles submitted through AfC - I think we need some place to teach our editors. But that personal preference doesn't mean you can't tag and if you're going to tag drafts this was a fine tag. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Hello Captain it wasn’t I who tagged it with a G11, I merely declined it. It so happens that I also share that philosophy with you & wouldn’t ever tag an article submitted via an AFC with any speedy deletion tag except it’s a copyvio or an attack page. Asides that I won’t tag an AFC article with a speedy deletion as that would be cruel. That’s just my philosophy though. Celestina007 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 6: Draft:Sajeesh Rajendran
    • checkY
  • 7: Draft:KevinDeJong
    • checkY
  • 8: Draft:Acropolis Cinema
    • checkY
  • 9: Draft:Ahmad Abdel Khaliq
    • checkY
  • 10: Aditya Goel
    • I'm a little suspicious of this one because when I searched I found indications that they had been accused of a crime. I'm not sure if this is an attempt to improve the image and make that harder to find or get the article in mainspace and make it easier to find. Either way call for attention per BLP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 11: Draft:Māra Lisenko
    • checkY
  • 12: Draft:Aquakultre
    • So I think you looked at this through an AfC lens (well all of these) where there is no obligation to search outside of included links. However, try doing a search like you would for NPP and tell me about what you find in terms of notability. Best,Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Per MUSICBIO a subject is presumed notable if they satisfy at least one criterion from MUSICBIO hence per #9 of MUSICBIO he qualifies for a stand alone article since he not only achieve third or second but actually won the music competition event. Coupled with #1 of WP:CRIME although I can’t tell if he was a “celebrity” before he became incarcerated.Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you saying he is notable or not? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, oh yes! I’m saying per #9 he is. Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2020
That's an interesting idea but I am guessing the Searchlight award is not a big enough award to qualify for #9 - we don't even have an article on it. I was more intrigued by [5] and [6]. I think that's not enough for notability (especially because I don't see any other music RS covering him) but it's close. Probably just barely a case of TOOSOON. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks for taking your time to clarify that for me. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, hello, I have completed the assignment of the day and would be glad if you can access all my AFC work and give me feedback on my performance. Furthermore I encountered interesting things throughout my AFC work today which I literally spent the whole day doing, most bizzare of all is encountering certain sleeper accounts, some of them as old as 12 years but with very low edit counts as though they just pop up/appear to create non notable articles then go back to “sleeping” I also encountered an inappropriate username which I reported immediately but apparently his/her username was already listed as that was the message I received. I used the welcome template for new users and did not for relatively “old users”. Furthermore I discovered that almost all articles at the AFC are problematic or are usually non notable. In the end although AFC reviewing consumed my whole day i’d say it was worth it.Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Question Hello @Barkeep49, I’ve been engaged in AFC reviewing since I was added & at this juncture I’ve got some questions to ask, well just two questions to be precise and I’d really appreciate your usual “straight to the point” replies. The first is this; what happens when you ”comment” on an AFC article as opposed to accepting or declining/rejecting? Does it mark the article as accepted or declined? or is the “comment” section supposed to be a note for the article creator? Secondly; do you use a welcome template with links to relevant policies for an editor whose article you have just declined & has 14 edits despite being a registered editor for over five years or do you just “keep an eye on the editor” for suspicious activity and go about your other business? Celestina007 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: Commenting just leaves a comment. Here's an example of a comment I left. I don't normally watch editors whose drafts I've declined. The script invites them to the teahouse which is good. They also frequently will ask you for help, which I then give. I will be looking at some of your work soon - I'd hoped it would be today but work has been busy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks for the clarification. Please relax and rest as good health is very much salient and comes first before anything else.Celestina007 (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. One follow-up above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
An overall good job with these which is just what I hoped to see. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Communication follow-up[edit]

Let's circle back to communication. Looking back over answers how well do you think you're doing with the 4 most recent discussion on your talk page?

@Barkeep49

ZayBinSteppin

  • Answer: I’d say I was doing okay, although I was sincerely confused & was willing to help if he expatiated further but the editor didn’t until today when he responded & a different editor beat me to it by replying the editor first.Celestina007 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you did well here. They were a little confusing but you did try to be helpful and provide answers. When someone discloses a COI, as that person did, I always point them to WP:DCOI and offer to do the disclosure for them if they would like. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Learnt something new! Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Bobrisky

  • Answer: My communication wasn’t okay here & there’s no justifying anything. He left me a message & I replied beginning with a friendly “Hello” but apparently he must have been enraged that there was a “false” information on the Bobrisky article & his reply was a condescending one implying that perharps I couldn’t tell a blog from a reliable one whereas it was he who couldn’t tell one from the other. Then from there they hauled insultuve derogatory comments at me which I didn’t respond to but how can I blame him? When in the first place I should have been civil and not label his comments as “asinine”Celestina007 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Good analysis. I think the comment that caused that conversation to derail was " do this, this & this look like blogs to you? Or didn’t you learn how to tell a reliable source from a blog? Apparently you didn’t!" The do this, this and this is not great on its own but the rhetorical question is really not good. Your first reply was strong and polite. Try to do more of that :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks I definitely would. Celestina007 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Black Chamber

  • Answer: I’d like to think myself & the editor ended things on a cordial note. Despite what seems to be my “tough” approach I enjoy a good humor as can be seen below where I used “we” instead of “you” Are we happy now?, This was my attempt at humor in order to get the editor to relax. He replied in a passive aggressive manner & in response to his tone despite my attempt at humor, i replied with my “serious face” in which he replied to with a less aggressive tone & in the end he got the message & I further asked him to ping me if he needed further assistance. So I’d like to think my communication skills here was fair.Celestina007 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the Are we happy now came off as more sarcastic humor than friendly humor. I think the rest of that first response was really good - calm and collected and informative in the face of aggression. However, on the merits Gaarmyvet is correct. You should not be draftifying an article the same minute it's created. Outside of attack (and COPYVIO) you should be waiting a minimum of 10 minutes (and longer doesn't hurt) before doing something like that. I think the topic is likely notable and might have been improved as such if not immediately draftified. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I would be keeping & observing the 10 minute rule before draftifying forthwith. Celestina007 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dakona Machoga

  • Answer:My communication here was fair. I always approach people with a “friendly face” but due to prejudice they may have about me they always tend to reply me in a funny manner. I truly wanted to help him but he ended up speaking Tibetan to me which I suspect was something derogatory but in any case didn’t want to google translate that, rather, I moved to my usual NPP patrolling.Celestina007 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you did a good job here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Final Exam[edit]

I think you're ready for the final exam. It has 10 parts though sometimes (because of how fast you work) I will psot more than one part at a time. Good luck and doesn't hestiate to ask questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Part 1[edit]

1. In your own words, why and how do communicate with the editor and why it is important to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE them?

  • Answer: We don’t bite the new editors because we want to encourage them to commit more to the project. We assume good faith with both new editors and old editors because it is the most efficient & best way to work in a collaborative community.Celestina007 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
How or why is AGF the "most efficient & best way to work in a collaborative community"? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, from my understanding assuming good faith is very much key because, like I said this is a collaborative project which means “we work together” to build the perfect or better encyclopedia, the inverse which would be “assuming bad faith” does nothing but hinder progress, waste time, & in the end makes editors achieve absolutely nothing other than time wasting whereas assuming good faith would enhance our goal of creating a better encyclopedia way faster because there would be peace, understanding & unity.Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY

2. What kind of sources are needed to demonstrate/contribute the notability of the subject? Why it is important?

  • Answer: We require reliable secondary sources & tertiary sources to substantiate or to prove any notability claims in an article. The sources must also be independent of the subject.Celestina007 (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
All true. Why is it important? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, reliable sources are paramount/pertinent for the sake of verifiability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY

3.What constitutes a [WP:COPYVIO]? When is it not a copyvio even if the texts are identical?

  • Answer: A copyright violation is basically copying and pasting non free texts from a non free website into the encyclopedia verbatim or semi verbatim. It is not a copyvio when the texts are copied from a public domain. Celestina007 (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY Public domain or an appropriately compatible license (Wikipedia is not in the public domain but we can copy because of our license). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

4. What should we do when we encounter WP:COPYVIO article and what should we place on the COPYVIO editor's talk page?

  • Answer: When the entire article is a copyvio we use the G12 CSD tag if it’s partial we may remove the infringement & request for a revdel. On the editors talk page we put the Template:Uw-copyright.Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY

5. What should we do when we encounter WP:PAID article and what should we place on the PAID editor's talk page?

  • Answer: We tag both the article & the talk page of editor of the article with relevant Paid related templates. For the article itself we tag with the undisclosed paid & on the editor’s tp we tag with Template:Uw-paid1 Celestina007 (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY Frequently a conversation is better than a template. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

6. When do we nominated a page for WP:G12 and when do we WP:REVDEL the COPYVIO text?

  • Answer: As I mentioned above, we tag with a G12 when the entire article or a big part of the article is a copyvio but we use the revdel when the copyvio isn’t so much.Celestina007 (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY

7. What constitute an article is a WP:PROMO page? What should do do when we encounter one?

  • Answer: A promo page is one where the editor of the article uses weasel words & puffery throughout the article when describing subject of the article, it is one in which the article creator’s sole purpose might be the promotion & updating of said page from time to time. When we encounter such we should tag with “Promo” & if it is blatantly promotional we should tag with the CSD G11. Celestina007 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

8. Why do we tag a page? What is important to remember when tagging an article?

  • Answer: We tag an article or articles with certain tags to indicate that the page in question is problematic having one or more issues and needs the attention of an editor to help tackle the problems. When tagging an article we should remember not to; Over-tag, Prematurely remove tags, Use Redundant tags, Use Vague tags, Use Un-constructive tags, Use Unhelpful tags, Use wrong tags, & Tag prematurely.Celestina007 (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY Very good answer. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

9. When do we WP:R2 a page?

  • Answer: This applies generally to redirects that redirect from one namespace to a different one.Celestina007 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY

10. When do we WP:PROD a page?

  • Answer: PRODing a page is done when the deletion of the said page would be uncontroversial & also when the article doesn’t meet the criteria for speedy deletion.Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY

11. When do we WP:BLPPROD a page?

  • Answer: We BLPPROD when a biography of a living person has no single source or EL in the article.Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY

12. When do we WP:AfD a page?

  • Answer: We “AFD” a page after a WP:BEFORE search, having discovered the subject of the article doesnt satisfy appropriate notability criteria. We also AFD a page when it doesn’t meet any specific CSD & lastly we AFD a page when a Prod we may have placed on the article has been contested. Celestina007 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY or if we think a PROD will be controversial. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

13. Why do we need to use CSD carefully?

  • Answer: As NPP’s we need to use CSD tags very carefully for a couple of reasons for example in order not to make a mess of things, secondly; although admins do their own research before honoring CSD tags they usually trust the judgment of a/an NPP hence at-times Admins may trust the judgement of an NPP & delete a page erroneously following a wrong CSD tag placed in error by a/an NPP they trust. Thirdly; we should place CSD tags correctly in order to not to waste the time of administrators.Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
You're missing some important ideas (or maybe you mean it as part of not to make a mess). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

14. When do we decide to WP:R2 / WP:PROD / WP:BLPPROD a page when the article has no source in it?

  • Answer: This question confused me a lot but my answer is; We use R2’s on redirects created by draftifying an article. We PROD an article if it’s deletion would be uncontroversial & they don’t meet any CSD. We BLPPROD an article if they have no sources listed or EL’s.Celestina007 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: the key here is has no source. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, okay so, We PROD an article if no reliable sources are found. we BLPPROD also for the same reason but a BLPPROD is used for a biography of a living person.Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

15. In your own words, list 5 things you have learned from observing and participating in AfD.

  • 1: regardless of how prolific the nominator is, always do your own WP:BEFORE before !voting.
  • 2: Don’t do pile on !voting
  • 3: !Vote based on policy
  • 4: Don’t revenge !vote
  • 5: Avoid personal attacks during an AFD discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY Good thoughts. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I’ve completed the first part of the examination although I should say that question #14 really got me confused.Celestina007 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Barkeep49, feel free to post the second to tenth exam questions & although you may think that might be cumbersome or a daunting task for me, I’d like to reassure you that I’m equal to the task & would to best of my ability attempt them(exams) as awaiting for the second part then the third part , then the fourth & so on has made me quite anxious & kept me in utmost suspense. Thanks for contemplating my humble request/appeal. Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: take another look at Q13. I'm going to post a large chunk of questions below. I'm hoping we can finish this off this week as I will be taking a few weeks vacation from project space beginning next week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]

Review WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD G11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol feed). Please provide the article names and hist diff/links

@Celestina007: the first three are all good work. The link to Enactus Nigeria isn't a valid one (I can't find a deleted page there). Also Soundabout UK was not actually a successful G11. Instead it was pared way down and then moved to draft space. Please take a loook at the history of Draft:Soundabout UK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I’m not exactly sure why the Enactus Nigeria link isn’t showing. This was the notification that was left on the userpage of the editor after I placed the CSD G11 tag on the article. Celestina007 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
That link was helpful. The article was at Enactus Nigeria.. That's also a good G11. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 3[edit]

Review WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and provide 5 successful CSD G12 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed New Page Patrol feed). Please provide the article names and hist diff.

Barkeep49, see #4, I found one new copyvio today. Celestina007 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I note that two of the speedy deletions above were declined. Checking to make sure that text is not PD or otherwise OK to post on wiki (e.g. has a compatible license) is a vital part of the COPYVIO process. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 4[edit]

1. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons.

1. Article 1: Welcome To The Terrordome

  • Reason: Doesn’t satisfy WP:NSONG.
    • What did your BEFORE discover? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Article 2: Dupe Olusola

  • Reason: Non notable business executive that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search shows no evidence of notability.
    • Why PROD as opposed to a different deletion method? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I used a prod here because the article doesn’t necessarily meet any CSD & because prodding it wouldn’t be a controversial move nor do I think it would be contested but if it is I would AFD it. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure how this would play at AfD but I think there is enough good sourcing by Nigerian RS (see WP:NPPRS for a list of some) that a discussion would be helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Nominate 1 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons.

1. Article: Philip Adjah

  • Reason: A biography of a living person in which at the time of prodding had no sources nor EL present in the article
    • This was not a good tag. He is notable under NFOOTY and finding a source should have been relatively easy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, my error, I didn’t perform due diligence here, I merely observed an article without an EL or any sources & immediately “BLP PRODDED” it. I would be more careful next time. Although I should state that typically I’m not a Prod person I simply AFD or CSD articles. In my regular NPP activities Prodding an article is something i usually would not do. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair point on you using using PRODs (I don't either when it comes to NPP) but knowing how to appropriately deal with unsourced BLPs is something an NPP reviewer needs to be able to do - it's simply too important of an area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, noted! I would be following due diligence forthwith. Celestina007 (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 5[edit]

1. Participate in 5 WP:AFD where by you are the first voter of the discussion. Please provide you reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.

Reason: fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes but also does not pass the applicable SNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Reason: no coverage in reliable sources could be found as evidence of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Reason: Fails NACTOR

Reason: a non notable organization.

Reason: lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

These all look good. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 6[edit]

Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanation of your nomination.

Explanation: Doesn’t satisfy either music bio or general notability guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Explanation: doesn’t satisfy WP:CORP. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Explanation: non notable musician not satisfying notability criteria for musicians or GNG.

Explanation: falls short of general notability criteria. Doesn’t pass WP:GNG.

Explanation: Falls short of WP:CORP.

These all look like good nominations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thank you so much captain. Celestina007 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 7[edit]

List 10 things needs to be considered/done when reviewing a page.

  • 1: Check sources used in the article to see if or not they are reliable sources.
  • 2: Check if they are a blatant promotion for an individual or organization
  • 3:Check for copyright violations
  • 4:Check if or not the article is a violation of what Wikipedia is not. For example Wikipedia is not news.
  • 5:Check if or not the article or articles subject meets our general notability guidelines.
  • 6:Add categories to article if it contains none.
  • 7:If article is a stub, then place the stub tag if it hasn’t been stub tagged yet.
  • 8:Check if the page is an attack page be it mildly or not.
  • 9:Include wikiproject to article of doesn’t contain one yet.
  • 10:Check if article was created by a blocked user. Celestina007 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    These are good. I would just add that we should check if the articles subject meets GNG or SNG and to add tags as appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 8[edit]

Please pick 5 articles that meet the notability guidelines from the new pages from Special:NewPagesFeed and follow the NPP flowchart and provide the appropriate answer below (write N/A when appropriate). Make sure an article has at least 3 sources; if an article has more than 4 sources you may decide which to use for the chart. Please provide link and diff of the article at the time you competed your assessment.

@Barkeep49, Hello Captain I finally got my phone fixed today & so far it seems to be okay as the overheating & malfunctioning are absent. I’d like to attempt part 8 of the exam but I’d have to ask; in number “11” I observe a statement which states “Reason for 10” I’m a little confused there & would humbly beseech you to clarify what that means. Do you mean I’m to state why the page is left unreviewed? Or since I don’t have the NPP flag do I just apply the N/A there? Celestina007 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
10 is what action you would take and 11 is the reason for this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

1[edit]

1.
  1. Article = Carmela Shamir
  2. Article titles = Ok
  3. Images copyright = N/A
  4. NPOV = Yes
  5. COI / PAID = No
  6. COPYVIO = No
  7. Article Class = Stub
  8. Short Descr = Yes
  9. Categories = Yes (4) / Excluding hidden
  10. Review = Yes
  11. Reason (for 10) = A notable ambassador who satisfies our notability criteria for a stand alone article.
  12. Sources
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/canada-understands-israels-challenges-diplomat-says Yes she doesn’t appear have influence over the information the source releases. Yes article appears to have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. No it doesn’t discuss subject of the article with significant coverage rather it discusses issues pertaining to Israel. She is mentioned but that doesn’t constitute significant coverage. ✘ No
https://www.thestar.com/news/2008/03/17/shifting_towards_israel.html Yes No No ✘ No
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-names-first-female-ambassador-to-muslim-country/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Error: a source must be specified ? Unknown
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}}.

Good job with 1-10. However please take another at the GNG chart. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, sorry for the late reply, sorry, I’d have to ask just to be sure. do you mean I should remove some sources I provided & replace with different sources? Celestina007 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
No I mean that some of the things you put a yes next to weren't (e.g. marking something as independent that wasn't). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, ohhhh! Of course! Now I understand very clearly. Pheeew! I’d do that!! Thanks for the clarification.
@Barkeep49, now having fully understood what you meant I have adjusted the chart. Although some sources aren’t great I observed after following a before conduct that she is mentioned in several sources that do not really comply to GNG seeing as some may be independent & reliable but do not discuss her with significant coverage but however per WP:BASIC a combination of all those sources it is my opinion that she qualifies for a stand alone. Celestina007 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you that she is notable which is why I noted good job with 1-10. First I am unaware of any reason to suspect the Star is not a reliable source. The bigger issue with both the star and CJN (which I actually don't know if it's reliable or not) is their independence. Both are substantially quotes or other things relayed from an interview with Shamir. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

2[edit]

2.
  1. Article = Dan Currie (footballer)
  2. Article titles = Ok
  3. Images copyright = N/A
  4. NPOV = Yes
  5. COI / PAID = No
  6. COPYVIO = No
  7. Article Class = Start
  8. Short Descr = No
  9. Categories = Yes (12)
  10. Review = Yes
  11. Reason (for 10) = Satisfies criteria for notability for footballers. The sources are okay.
  12. Sources
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://www.valeofleven.org.uk/valefootballers.html#currie Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=UXxAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oqMMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1796%2C7130717 Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PzY1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=MqYLAAAAIBAJ&pg=1762%2C6642478 Yes Yes No ✘ No
http://www.neilbrown.newcastlefans.com/clyde/clyde.html Yes Yes No ✘ 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}}.

The steps are again correct but the chart needs revision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The chart is improved but still incorrect. You are right that the two newspapers are not significant coverage of Currie. However, there is no reason I can find to suspect sources 1 & 4 are reliable and 4 also isn't sigcov. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

3[edit]

3.
  1. Article = Sonajharia Minz
  2. Article titles = Ok
  3. Images copyright = N/A
  4. NPOV = Yes
  5. COI / PAID = No
  6. COPYVIO = No
  7. Article Class = Start
  8. Short Descr = No
  9. Categories = Yes (9) / Excluding hidden
  10. Review = Yes
  11. Reason (for 10) = notable academic that satisfies WP:NACADEMIC.

@Barkeep49, Sorry, scrap that, she satisfies WP:GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  1. Sources
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://enewsroom.in/jharkhand-tribal-vice-chancellor-university/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://theprint.in/india/education/my-teacher-once-asked-how-could-i-be-good-in-sanskrit-tribal-woman-scholar-whos-now-a-v-c/431786/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.news18.com/news/india/assumed-to-be-maid-rebuked-for-topping-in-maths-new-v-c-of-skmu-recalls-racial-caste-based-discrimination-2645921.html Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://m.femina.in/trending/achievers/sonajharia-minz-becomes-the-second-tribeswoman-to-be-elected-as-a-vc-159729.html ? Unknown
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}}.
Which criteria of NACADEMIC are you saying she qualifies for? And again the chart needs a second look. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I had criterion #7 in mind when i made the reply. Celestina007 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
And how so? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, sorry I meant to say she satisfies WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
As I've noted before being able to explain why you made a decision is important as an NPP. I was not even saying criteria 7 was wrong (though I think it works much better for someone like early career Neil deGrasse Tyson who was appointed to a presidential commission in his academic area of expertise before becoming a notable TV host). My concern, which I was asking questions to see if it was true or not, was that you were too focused on the line She is the first tribeswoman, elected as a vice-chancellor in the Indian University. Such "First X to be Y" claims are generally not enough to be notable on their own. This one is very specific too - tribeswoman as vice-chancellor (not even chancellor) in an Indian University. I think there's a decent chance she is notable - NPROF is a tricky SNG because it deviates from many of the best practices we've discussed here at other points - but the why is as important as the outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

4[edit]

4.
  1. Article = Billy Chemirmir
  2. Article titles = Ok
  3. Images copyright = N/A
  4. NPOV = Yes
  5. COI / PAID = No
  6. COPYVIO = No
  7. Article Class = C
  8. Short Descr = Yes
  9. Categories = Yes (9) / Excluding hidden
  10. Review = Yes
  11. Reason (for 10) = Sufficient coverage in reliable sources.
  12. Sources
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ureport/story/2001274445/kenyan-family-shocked-over-reports-that-their-son-killed-an-81-year-old-at-a-texas-elderly-home Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2020/02/25/billy-chemirmir-faces-capital-murder-counts-in-deaths-of-two-more-elderly-women-total-indictments-at-14/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.nation.co.ke/counties/baringo/Suspected-Kenyan-serial-killer-Billy-Chemirmir-loner-troubled/3444812-5477744-ak5lg4/index.html Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/suspected-serial-killer-billy-chemirmir-faces-two-more-charges-capital-murder-cases-climb-to-14/2318174/ ? Unknown
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}}.
Good job with all parts here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

5[edit]

5.
  1. Article = Nigerian Guild of Editors
  2. Article titles = Ok
  3. Images copyright = N/A
  4. NPOV = Yes
  5. COI / PAID = No
  6. COPYVIO = No
  7. Article Class = Stub
  8. Short Descr = No
  9. Categories = Yes (2) / Excluding hidden
  10. Review = Yes
  11. Reason (for 10) = Sources are reliable & there is sufficient coverage on article topic
  12. Sources
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://guardian.ng/features/nge-urged-to-uphold-ethics-promote-good-governance-as-egbemode-is-re-elected/ Yes Yes very reliable source with editorial oversight and reputation for fact checking No doesn’t discuss the organization in itself. ✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/04/23/guild-of-editors-seeks-collaboration-with-nuj/ Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.sunnewsonline.com/nge-demands-release-of-journalists/ Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.sunnewsonline.com/nigerian-guild-of-editors-urge-fg-to-grant-waivers-on-newsprint-others/ Yes Yes No ✘ 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}}.
Both 1-10 and the source chart need a second look. This is the trickiest article you choose. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, although must of the sources do not discuss the organization in itself the organization is mentioned in numerous reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Like I said I think it's tricky. Push comes to shove I'd probably mark it as reviewed myself as I agree it's ultimately a notable organization. I think the Guardian checks all the GNG boxes. However, the other three are just reprinting a press release. Which is fine but is not independent coverage. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


Barkeep49, thanks for being patient with me, I’ve completed about 95% of the examination but currently stuck on the copyvio part as I have to literally wait for a copyvio to occur before I can successfully attempt to answer the question accordingly. Celestina007 (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand. If that's all you have left I can start giving feedback on the other sections. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49, Yes, I’m fine with that. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Notes and feedback[edit]

@Celestina007: I was patrolling A7s tonight and came across Lilian Steichen. As a reminder, if there is a valid redirect target, as Sandburg clearly is in this case, A7 is not appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Celestina&oldid=1091592803"