User:Onel5969/Clovermoss/NPP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome Clovermoss to your New Page Patrol School page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist (I have done so already). Your NPP School page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). I know that you said in the email on my talkpage that you feel you have a grasp of many the core policies, such as RS and NPOV. That's a very good start, and will help us move quickly through some areas. And that you would like to work on your knowledge of notability and deletion. While in doing NPP you do have to understand the different forms of deletion and where and when to use them, so this will definitely help you in that area, and of course, one of the foundational concepts we use in reviewing is notability, so you will be well served in that area as well.

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Notability as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page. 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.

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. Onel5969 TT me 21:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I have read WP:NPP and a lot of the wikilinks that were on the page. It took awhile. I would say that my stronger areas are redirects (I've created more than 1,000 redirects) and usernames (I've made several reports to UAA in regards to promotional editing). One of my weaker areas would be notability (I feel like some of my understanding is shaky, even though I've gotten better over time at understanding it; I also know some of the SNG but not all). I also think paid editing, especially UPE, is one of my weaker areas because I don't really have any experience with it. Clovermoss (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Excellent. Redirects are certainly important, but at NPP they tie into notability, cause if you find a non-notable subject, you really have 5 choices at NPP: 1 - Delete request (either CSD, Prod or AfD); 2 - tag for notability and leave unreviewed, allowing another reviewer to take a look; 3 - Draftify (which we'll get into during the school); 4 - doing nothing, just simply skipping over it (I think about 10-15% of the articles I look at I do this with); and then redirecting, as an alternate to deletion. Usernames isn't really essential to NPP, although since you deal with new articles, you might come across ones which need reporting.
Notability is something we'll go over ad nauseam, both GNG and the SNG's. Remember, during the process if you feel you need more practice at something, don't hesitate to ask. UPE is something that I'm okay at (there are others who are great at spotting it). There are one or two tells we'll go over which are easy to spot.

As we go through this process, remember it's a marathon, not a sprint. Take your time. We'll move at your pace.

Now we begin.

Notability[edit]

PART 1

Questions[edit]

Question 1

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

Notability is used to determine whether or not we should have an article, as we don't have an article on everything that exists. Clovermoss (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 17:44, 19 July 2021 (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?

No, because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Clovermoss (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY - exactly. Onel5969 TT me 17:44, 19 July 2021 (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?

Notability can be determined by passing GNG or an SNG. GNG can apply to any article topic, while SNGs are subject-specific. If an article does not pass SNG but passes GNG, my understanding is that it would still be notable. Clovermoss (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY - A prominent SNG is WP:NACADEMIC, which in many cases, is the only SNG which actually trumps GNG. And it's tricky, for one of the criteria is how often that scholar is cited. There is no hard and fast rule about # of citations, it varies depending on whatever discipline the scholar is in. For example, two scholars might have identical citation counts of 100 for 3 solo articles each, but depending on the discipline that might be okay for one and not another. I've found a good rule of thumb is that if a scholar has multiple solo articles with over 200 citations, they will almost certainly pass an AfD discussion. Historically it has been enough to say that a subject passes the SNG (for example, saying a football player passes WP:NFOOTY) to cast a keep !vote at an AfD. In recent months there has been a concerted effort to get away from that, and so, particularly in sports biographies, just passing the SNG is not enough, they must pass GNG. However, you are correct that usually passing an SNG is good enough.Onel5969 TT me 03:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Subject-specific notability guidelines[edit]

1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines) into the following three categories

Note: I was a bit confused about what exactly the above question was asking for, so I filled out one of each to see if this is what you're looking for or if you're expecting something different from this excerise. Is this what I'm supposed to do? Clovermoss (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

checkY - It's always interesting to see something from someone else's perspective. I would never have thought to view astronomical objects through the lens of GEOLAND, but I can see how you came up with that. And I like how you viewed it. A couple of points, in theory, no SNG trumps GNG. That being said, NACADEMIC almost always does. But it's a tricky one, there is no hard and fast rule on how many citations qualify, it depends on the academic specialty. But being the head of a university (which is called different things in different countries is always an automatic keep, or holding a named chair). NCORP is actually more restrictive than GNG, due to WP:CORPDEPTH, which asks that sourcing be more than local coverage. In other words, if there is a local shop which gets a lot of coverage in the local papers, that's not enough. It needs to get coverage from sources outside the region. when patrolling, the mere fact that these SNG's are met can usually mean that they will pass an AfD discussion, and therefore meet notability requirements. Although the sports criteria are now beginning to be looked at more carefully, and GNG is gaining more weight. Last year, if there was an article on an association football player who played a single game in 1956, and was solely sourced by Soccerway, that article would have survived an AfD, based solely on the "Meets NFOOTY" criteria. Now, many of these articles are being re-looked at, and many of them are being deleted. Onel5969 TT me 02:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding this, but I would think that in general, articles that pass SNGs would be patrolled, but that there are cases where this wouldn't nessecarily be enough (such as NFOOTY)? If I'm not sure about any particular article I could leave it to another patroller or add Template:Notability. Clovermoss (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY - thanks for pointing out that I did overlook this answer. This is something you'll develop a feel for, and it is a bit subjective, and can change over time. For example, two years ago, NFOOTY was sacrosanct -- you played in a single game, you were deemed notable. That's begun to change over time, with GNG being called into play more often. Some reviewers will mark any article which satisfies an SNG as reviewed, even with a single source. For instance, if an individual meets WP:NPOL, and there is only a single ref to the legislative's body website, that person will probably get marked as reviewed. Personally, I would, but tag it with a "single reference" tag. Or perhaps a "more references" tag or "primary sources" tag, depending on what is contained in the article. GEOLAND is another one, if there is a citation from a census type website. Onel5969 TT me 12:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Scenarios[edit]

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

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

Scenario 1

An editor creates an article about "2028 Summer Olympics" without providing any sources

The SNG applicable to this article would be Wikipedia:Notability (events). The article being completely unreferenced is a quality issue, so I would add Template:unreferenced. I think that this article would be notable because Olympics usually have lasting importance and a large geographic scope because there are international competitors. However, if the year was really far into the future (e.g. 2040 Olympics), I would nominate it for AFD because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and an article on it would pretty much be original research at this point in time. Clovermoss (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY - although since it's unreferenced, I would redirect it to the main Olympics games page, and give an edit summary of something like, WP:TOOSOON, redirect until sourcing becomes available. Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 2

A New York city based 2020 start up software company, specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.

From this context, I don't think this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Investors aren't considered secondary sources, so unless this company has recieved significant, non-trivial coverage from independant and reliable sources, I don't think that this would be considered a notable article. Clovermoss (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY - another thing to look at when evaluating corporations (or organizations) is WP:CORPDEPTH, which has to be met and simply means that the coverage has to go beyond local sources. Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 3

Movsar Evloev who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 12-0.

The applicable SNG for this article would be Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I think that this article would pass SPORTCRIT because the Ultimate Fighting Championships are included as an example for martial arts notability in the WP:NMMA subsection. Clovermoss (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY - Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 4

An upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, which will be in production in January 2021 and to be released on August 2021 in the cinemas.

I do not think this would pass the applicable SNG Wikipedia:Notability (films), because it is a future film that doesn't seem to have finished prinicipal photography. Clovermoss (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY - regarding principal photography, the key is beginning, not ending, so it would pass WP:NFF. However, just because a film has started photography does not necessarily mean it's notable. That being said, the vast majority of time NFF is enough to get through an AfD. Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 5

A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2020 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy.

I do not think that this would pass the applicable SNG WP:NPOL because he is an unelected candidate for senator. If he was actually elected as a state senator, then he would meet that SNG. Clovermoss (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY - yup fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 6

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

I do not think this would pass the applicable SNG WP:NSINGER, if the article is about the person, as simply self-publishing an album on spotify doesn't make someone notable. If the article is about the album, unless it has reached national music charts (which is extremely unlikely), it wouldn't meet that SNG either. Clovermoss (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY - funny, I've never actually never seen anyone use the NSINGER shortcut (most folks use WP:MUSICBIO, which points to the same policy). Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: For some reason, I have a tendency to use uncommon shortcuts (another example being WP:ANV). Thanks for grading this section. I was wondering if you noticed my answer to the second question in the first part? I'm worried my understanding of that may be wrong. Clovermoss (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 7

Carlos Alรณs-Ferrer

The SNG that would establish this article's notabilty is WP:NACADEMIC and meets criteria 8, as he is the editor in chief of Journal of Economic Psychology. Clovermoss (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 8

Alistair Overeem

The SNG that would establish this article's notability is WP:NMMA as he fought in the UFC and WP:NKICK as he fought in the K1. Clovermoss (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 9

Jennifer Lopez

The SNG that would establish this article's notability is WP:NSINGER. Lopez has had at least one single and/or album on a national music chart. Another applicable SNG is WP:NACTOR, as she has starred in multiple films. Clovermoss (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 10

Three Mile Island accident

The SNG that would establish this article's notability is WP:NEVENT; this was a significant nuclear accident, with extensive and lasting coverage. Clovermoss (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 11

Persepolis

The SNG that would establish this article's notability WP:GEOLAND, as it was populated place and even though it is currently in ruins, notability is not temporary. Clovermoss (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Background for trainees[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. WP:NPPSG may be a useful reference for looking up the reliability of a source that has been discussed before on Wikipedia.
You can contact WP:RX if you could not find the sources yourself either on the web due to paywalls or offline-only sources.

Exercises[edit]

1.
Topic Definition 5 Examples Comment by Trainer
Reliable source Information that comes from a reputable source and not something like gossip, hearsay, or tabloids. Undue weight should not be given to fringe viewpoints, and there should be some form of fact-checking/quality control (e.g. an editorial board for a newspaper).
  1. (example)The Guardian newspaper
  2. CBC, a Canadian public broadcasting company
  3. Nature (journal), a journal that publishes peer-reviewed research; but if you're looking at WP:MEDRS, that's more complicated and something like a Cochrane Review would be better because that's a systemic review
  4. Le Monde, a French newspaper - just make sure you aren't citing opinion columns
  5. Medieval European Coinage, a book that is published by Cambridge University Press and would be a reliable source to cite about a medieval european coin.
  6. Indian Space Research Organisation would be a reliable source for astronomy-related articles
 checkY - be aware that even reliable sources can have information which is not. For example the Editorials at many major newspapers. They are editorial opinions, rather than actual news. Also, even though a reliable source, these can also be primary sources when they discuss something regarding themselves. Onel5969 TT me 15:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
User generated sources User-generated sources are sources that do not have quality control and could be from anyone. This could be from something like a self-published book (because traditional publishing companies typically have some form of quality control), to social media comments, to wikis.
  1. YouTube (unless it's something like an official channel for a reliable source like The New York Times, but someone uploading Flat earther content would definitely not be an acceptable source to cite for info about Earth
  2. TVtropes (user-generated wiki content)
  3. Ancestry.com (user-generated and using it in an article could constitute original research)
  4. wikiHow (user-generated and WP:NOTHOWTO)
  5. Instagram (user-generated, anyone can share an opinion - could be used for verifying certain biographical details if the subject is the author of the post per WP:BLPSELFPUB
 checkY - other major types you'll come across will be blogs or personal websites, content farms, internet forums. Still others are patents and thesis papers. While you name 3 of the huge ones (YT, Instagram, and Ancestry.com), some other big ones are Twitter and Facebook. Onel5969 TT me 15:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Non Independent source A non-independant source is a primary source or a source that has some sort of conflict of interest, such as a sponsered advertisment. Primary sources can be used in certain contexts (e.g. WP:BLPSELFPUB), but from my understanding, they can't be used to establish notability. They should generally be avoided if you can use an independant, third-party source instead.
  1. Articles that are paid news in Times of India. This is more of a concern in entertainment-related articles, from what I can tell.
  2. [1] is an example of a press release. It shouldn't be used as a source in the Terry Fox Foundation article, unless you said something like "According to the Terry Fox Foundation, they have funded 1,300 cancer research projects" instead of "The Terry Fox Foundation has funded 1,300 cancer research projects". But even then, independant sources would be preffered, as press releases are explicitly written to give an organization good PR.
  3. [2] is a syndicated news story that is not independant of the Associated Press story. This means that they should be treated as a single source if they were ever used in an article.
  4. Research that has a conflict of interest because it has recieved private funding that could influence the methodology and results (e.g. an alcohol company funding research of a study that ultimately concludes that moderate drinking has health benefits).
  5. A favourable review of a band that is published by a band member's niece. They would likely have a biased opinion of the subject, as their uncle is in the band.
 checkY - but some primary sources can be used to establish notability, for example, the legislature website for any of the 50 US states. They are primary, but can definitely be used to show that an individual passes WP:NPOL, in fact, they are the best source to show that. However, the bios on the site are usually written by the individuals, and therefore are both primary and unreliable. In other words, you can use it show notability, but have to be careful about using them to satisfy WP:VERIFY about certain facts about the person. Press releases should never be used. I understand your comment about the phrasing, but that's simply a way to get promotional material into an article. One of the keys is the financial component. There are editors who argue that even though a source has financial backing from a certain source, they can still maintain their independence. Personally, I'm not sure how that's possible. Onel5969 TT me 15:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
2.
Type Definition Examples (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary) Comment by Trainer
Primary Original materials that are directly involved in a topic (e.g. a diarist writing about a historical event). Primary sources also include experimental research and studies that are not systemic reviews (an example of this is included below).
  1. (example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results
  2. Samuel Pepys' diary entries about the Great Fire of London
  3. What Happened (Clinton book) would be a primary source in regards to the 2016 United States presidential election
  4. This journal article using experimental data [3]
  5. Queen Victoria's journals
  6. CBC content about one of its one reporters [4]
  7. On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft would be a primary source on Stephen King, because this book is a memoir written by him
  8. anglican.ca would be a primary source on the Anglican Church of Canada
  9. This legislative summary of Bill C-51 by the Parliament of Canada [5]
  10. The Ontario Ministry of Education website would be a primary source [6]
  11. This account from a reporter that was at Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church#Clearing Lafayette Square and St. John's [7]
  12. Writing with Intent would be a primary source on Margaret Atwood, as it is a collection of her essays/experiences
  13. Night (book) would be a primary source about the author's experience as a Holocaust survivor
  14. Lightning Statistics by the Canadian Lightning Detection Network [8]
  15. The Alpine Path: The Story of My Career would be a primary source on Lucy Maud Montgomery, as it is an autobiography
  16. Elections.ca would be a primary source in regards to Canadian elections
 checkY - nicely done. Other types of primary sourcing would be: 1. driver in a traffic accident recounting the details; 2.a newspaper article sourced solely based on an interview (this is a very common one); 3. news/magazine articles based SOLELY on nebulous sources (e.g. "senior official", "source familiar with ... "); press releases; diaries; court summaries; comments from the White House Press Secretary during a press briefing; social networking posts (instagram, fb, twitter). Onel5969 TT me 23:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Secondary Secondary sources are analysis or interpretation of primary sources (e.g. a book review); these sources are not nessecarily independant.
  1. (example) newspaper
  2. The Toronto Star
  3. This book review by Dory Cerny and published by Quill and Quire [9]
  4. The Irish Times
  5. L'ร‰quipe
  6. The New York Times
 checkY - other types of these sources are 1. a meta-analysis/review in a scholarly journal and books and magazine articles (as long as they are not written by the article's subject). Onel5969 TT me 23:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Tertiary Summarization of primary and secondary sources (e.g. Cochrane Reviews, encyclopedias, other compendias of information).
  1. (example) encyclopedias
  2. The Canadian Encyclopedia
  3. Mathematics and its History by John Stillwell (it's an undergraduate textbook)
  4. Checklist of the birds of Ontario by Ontario Field Orthithologists [10] (I'm not sure about this one, but I thought it might be an example of other compendia as explained in WP:TERTIARY If it isn't, I think this would be considered a primary source).
  5. Encyclopรฆdia Britannica
  6. Wikipedia, but you wouldn't want to cite a wikipedia article because it would be a circular reference and our content is user-generated and thus not a reliable source
 checkY - Many people make the mistake of lumping WP into tertiary sourcing, but as WP:TERTIARY points out, "Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself". Travel Guides and Almanacs are other good examples of tertiary sources (although Travel Guides with good editorial oversight could be classed as a secondary source). Onel5969 TT me 23:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
3.


Subject Primary Secondary Tertiary Comment by Trainer
Example: Art Example:A photo of a sculpture Example:An article in The New Yorker that reviews a new exhibit Example:A museum catalog entry
History Wasif Jawhariyyeh's diaries about Jerusalem's modern history This archived 1988 article about Henry Morgentaler [11] This encyclopedia article about Grace Annie Lockhart [12] checkY - other examples of the secondary and tertiary are a textbook which offers an interpretation of the diary for the former and a history textbook. Onel5969 TT me 02:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Science This research article about the carrot family [13] This review article about deep continental roots and crators [14] This Cochrane review about lowโ€dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour [15] checkY - The Cochrane review would be secondary. A good tertiary is an encyclopedia article. Onel5969 TT me 02:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Athletes An interview with Victoria Pickett [16] CBC article about Victoria Pickett [17] This encyclopedia article about Kathy Switzer [18] checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 02:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Please explain in your own words why the content claimed needs to be verified?
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of our five pillars. Content needs to be verifiable to make sure it isn't original research and as proof to show that it's not just something you made up (like a hoax or misinformation). This is especially important in regards to biographies of living people. Clovermoss (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 23:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
5. Could we use Wikipedia as the source? and why?
No, because Wikipedia is a circular reference. We'd also want to avoid using wesbites that mirror Wikipedia. However, if you wanted to do something like include some content from a related article into a subsection, like (e.g. this subsection Menstrual cycle#Menstruation from Menstruation), you would want to follow Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Clovermoss (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
checkY - although the biggest reason is not circular, but because WP is not a reliable source, since it has no editorial oversight. Onel5969 TT me 23:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
6. Give an example and explain why a source is reliable but not independent of a subject?
A verified social media account from the article subject that says that they idenitfy as non-binary and prefer they/them pronouns; that information would be reliable, but it wouldn't be independant. Clovermoss (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Red XN - social media is never reliable. However, there are lots of other types which fall into this category. Some would be a website for state legislature, being used in an article about members of that legislature. Company websites. Even newspapers can fall into this category in certain situations, for example, the New York Times writing a newspaper article about a business based off of a press release or an interview with a company officer, rather than based off the staff writer's own thoughts and research. Onel5969 TT me 23:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: To clarify, I meant only using social media in the context of WP:SELFPUB. I know it isn't a reliable source for pretty much anything else. Clovermoss (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
7. Give an example and explain why a source is independent source but not reliable?
A tabloid's content about a celebrity would be considered an independant source, but it would also be an unreliable source. Clovermoss (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
checkY - other examples could be blogs not by the article subject. Onel5969 TT me 23:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
8
Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania (1937)

Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 โ€“ 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 โœ” Yes
https://franklloydwright.org/work/ No Yes Yes โœ˜ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302053743/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes โœ” Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC Yes Yes Yes Yes, John Wiley & Sons is an academic publisher Yes Yes, it's an entire book dedicated to the subject โœ” Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ 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.
checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 03:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
9
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 No Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Daily_Beast Yes โœ˜ No
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108 Yes As far as I can see, but since the website has an affiliation with Adidas and Williams is an athlete, it wouldn't be independant if they have sponsored him Yes I was a bit wary since stats is in the title, but it doesn't appear to be user-generated Yes The page is specifically about him โœ” Yes
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308 No It's an interview with an athlete Yes It's a reputable newspaper No The content is trivial, passing mention to Williams as some people believing him to be the game's biggest hitter โœ˜ No
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html Yes It's a newspaper article, there are some quotes but it's not an interview Yes It's a reputable newspaper. However, this is an article that is more than 15 years old so using it as a source should be used carefully because a lot of information could be outdated. Yes The article focuses on Williams. โœ” Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ "2019 Rugby World Cup: Sonny Bill Williams is expecting a fourth child". Mail Online. 2019-09-25. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  2. ^ "Stats | allblacks.com". stats.allblacks.com. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  3. ^ Rattue, Chris (2 September 2006). "Jerome Ropati โ€“ 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.
checkY - the AllBlacks source is clearly non-independent. Onel5969 TT me 03:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)



10
David Petraeus

David Howell Petraeus AO (/pษชหˆtreษช.ษ™s/; 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 (1915โ€“2008),[4] a sea captain from Franeker, Netherlands.[5]


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


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/ Yes The source is major newspaper Yes The source is reputable published source Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail โœ” Yes
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch Yes CNN is an independant media company Yes The video isn't user-generated Yes The video is about Patraeus โœ” Yes
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893 Yes No Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#HuffPost_(politics). However, it might be more reliable than usual considering it is a republished piece from the Associated Press. Yes The article has signifigant coverage of Patreaus โœ˜ No
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012 No It's impossible to tell, since it's user-generated No It's user-generated content Yes Technically, since the source is focuses on him, but I think that the overall content counts as relatively trivial, if that makes sense. It's just some basic stats that may or may not be true because it's from a user-generated website. โœ˜ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005 Yes Is independant from Patreaus Yes Is a media company with editorial oversight of some kind Yes This is an article about Patreaus โœ” Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html No Is an interview with Patreaus Yes PBS is a reliable source Yes This is an interview conducted with Patraeus โœ˜ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html Yes Not connected to the article subject as far as I can tell Yes Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The Independent. This article was published before 2016. Yes As far as I can tell, but I'm not entirely sure because beyond the first paragraph is paywalled. โœ” Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ "Petraeus sworn in as CIA director". CNN. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  2. ^ Johnson, Kevin (November 9, 2012). "David Petraeus resigns from CIA". USA Today. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
  3. ^ "Petraeus Shocked By Girlfriend's Emails". HuffPost. 2012-11-12. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  4. ^ "Sixtus Petraeus". geni.com.
  5. ^ "David Petraeus' Winning Streak". Vanity Fair. March 30, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  6. ^ "beyond baghdad". www.pbs.org. 2004-02-12. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  7. ^ "David Petraeus: General Surge". The Independent. 2007-09-08. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
checkY - yup, you nailed it. Onel5969 TT me 03:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)



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's her instagram account Yes In regards to WP:BLPSELFPUB No Not signifigant in regards to GNG โœ˜ No
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-us-open-hingis-20170910-story.html Yes The source is a newspaper article Yes The source is a newspaper article Yes Yes, the article is about her โœ” Yes
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=4x3fQ920EUMC&pg=PA197&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Yes The "about" page on Google Books mentions interviews with tennis stars, but does not mention Hingis. It's possible she's interviewed elsewhere in the book and I just didn't see it because I was looking at a specific page, in which the case it would be no. Yes Pontomac Books is affiliated with the University of Nebraska Press No It's relatively trivial coverage by itself, even if it's about being among the highest-paid tennis players and being voted Swiss Personality of the Year โœ˜ No
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/21171438/tennis-another-twist-bizarre-career-martina-hingis Yes ESPN is a media company/basic sports channel Yes The piece is written by a staff writer Yes The article is about her โœ” Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/nov/01/tennis Yes Is a newspaper Yes Yes, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Guardian Yes It's about her retirement and a doping controversy โœ” Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ "Martina Hingis (@martinahingis80) โ€ข 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. 197โ€“. 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.
checkY - although I would disagree with Instagram being reliable. There is no editorial oversight, so a person can write anything about themselves. Onel5969 TT me 03:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

Question 18

Describe the steps you should take when assessing whether an unfamiliar source is reliable.

There are several factors to consider. Some key words to look for would be something like "blog" or "press release" somewhere on the site. Things published via some form of wordpress are usually self-published, so I'd avoid sources like that. Ideally, I would want something with some sort of editorial board or peer review, which are something that reputable media sources or published journals typically have. If I'm using an unfamilar source, I'd search for information about the website. For example, earlier today, I cited a statement to the RNZ. I looked it up because I was unfamilar with it and found out that it was the website for a public broadcaster in New Zealand. If I'm ever unsure about the reliability of a source or it seems somewhat borderline, I would search whether or not it is on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. If I'm still uncertain after all of that, I'd err on the side of caution and just not use whatever I'm looking at as a source. I could also try posting at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Clovermoss (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY - a good way to find out the editorial policies of a website is to take a look on their website in the "about" section, but that's only a rudimentary check. Another good source to use is Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide (WP:NPPRS). Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Source assessment[edit]

19. One last thing before we move on to the next section. This is just to get you used to identifying sources at a glance, and not having to look them up anywhere. So without going to any of the resources such as WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG or WP:RSN, assess whether the following sources are reliable. If you are totally unfamiliar, go to their WP page, to see if they exist. In responding, please be as possible as to why you derived your conclusion. Feel free to offer topic-scoped assessments such as "likely reliable for claims related to pop culture" or "reliable for non-political subject matter".
A. The Moscow Times
I'm unfamilar with this one, so I looked up the Wikipedia page. It appears to be a reliable source as it's a reputable newspaper. Clovermoss (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
B. USA Today
I'm somewhat familar with this source. I think it'd be reliable for the most part, but I'd be careful in using it in regards to anything regarding biographies of living people because stories about celebrities can be sensationalized. Clovermoss (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
C. The Hindu
Is a reliable Indian newspaper. Clovermoss (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY - You have to be careful of Indian newspapers, as they tend to suffer from churnalism. Especially for business and celebrity articles. Many times they will simply take press releases and regurgitate them as actual news articles. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
D. Anadolu Agency
Not a reliable source. I'm unfamilar with the source, but the impression I recieved by looking at the Wikipedia article is that it's controlled by the Turkish government and used for propaganda. Clovermoss (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
E. Popular Mechanics
Is typically a reliable source because it is a reputable magazine. There is a criticism section on the Wikipedia page involving an article about a UFO in 2020, so it wouldn't be reliable if you were citing that specifically. If conspiracy-theories/pseudoscience continued to be perpertuated in the future, I wouldn't consider it reliable. Hopefully this was just a one-off situation sort of thing. Clovermoss (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
F. South China Morning Post
I would consider it to be a reliable source for the most part, but I'd avoid using it a source for anything about politics since there's been concerns about its political coverage no longer being independant since the 2016 change of ownership. Clovermoss (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
G Seventeen
It's part of a mainstream media company, but I can't think of a situation where it would be an appropriate source to cite in an encyclopedia. The cover page of the magazine in the article includes a headline called "Clear skin in one week" which sounds dubious and definitely wouldn't be what's needed (medical references and not some "quick fix") in an article about something like acne. Clovermoss (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY - it can be used in very specific situations, but must be used with caution. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
H. Egypt Today
I'm not sure as I'm unfamilar with the source and the Wikipedia article is quite sparse. It was banned in 2005 but had an active circulation still in 2013? Was that international circulation, or was the ban lifted? I'll likely start a discussion on the talk page about that. I will say that government censorship of independant journalism in certain countries is an unfortunate reality, so it'd likely be a more reliable source compared to something like Anadolu Agency. Clovermoss (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY - it can be used in very specific situations, but must be used with caution. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I. Xconomy
I'm unfamilar with the source, but from what I can tell from the Wikipedia article it seems like it would be typically reliable. If I was citing a source I'd still look for whether or not it is a press release or there is some form of COI, because that seems more common in anything business-related. Clovermoss (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Red XN - It's a PR mill. You have to be very careful with trade publications. Usually unreliable, but can be used in some very specific situations. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
J. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
It seems to be a reliable source by a reputable newspaper. I'm unfamilar with the source, but I didn't see any major red flags looking at the Wikipedia article. Clovermoss (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
K. Blesk
This is not a reliable source. I was previously unfamilar with it, but it's a tabloid. Clovermoss (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
L. La Jornada
I was previously unfamilar with it, but it appears to be a reliable source as a reputable newspaper. Clovermoss (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
M. The Forward
I'm unfamilar with it, but it looks like it would be a reliable source as a reputable media organization. Clovermoss (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY - Despite their claims of neutrality, they do have a point of view, and that can creep into their articles. So I would say they are okay to use generally, but always with caution. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
N. The Daily Californian
It's a student newspaper, so the only reason that I would think it would be relevant to cite it would be as a primary source for the University of Berkeley. It's possible I'm wrong about this, but I'm under the impression that you should generally avoid citing student newspapers for anything else. Clovermoss (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY - student publications, even when they read "independent" are rarely considered independent. For instance, in this case, they say they are independent, but take funding from the university. They can be used for certain instances, but never for notability, or for claims which are subject to intepritation (e.g. "best hostel", "first fraternity...", etc.). Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

On the whole - Very nice job. More than likely better than I would have done when I first started. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Content Policy[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 (264โ€“241 BC).[1][2][3]

References

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

Answer: I don't think this article title would need to be changed. There doesn't seem to be a name he is more commonly known by. Clovermoss (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Red XN - WP:COMMONNAME is the over-riding emphasis in title names, think of Cher, Madonna, Pele, and Caligula. Hannibal is used in the 3 sources given, is WP:CONCISE, and is supported by the topic-specific naming convention WP:SINGLENAME.Sometimes the most common name is a phrase, like Alexander the Great. And then there are folks who are known by their nickname or stagename, like Haystak. If there is an issue with disambiguation, like Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer), you still use the single name, and handle it with a dab.Onel5969 TT me 11:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, the article title should be Hannibal, then? And then there would be a Hannibal (disambiguation)? Clovermoss (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes Clovermoss, the article title should be Hannibal (and is). On that page there is a hatnote to not only the dab, Hannibal (disambiguation), but also to Hannibal Lector (although in my opinion the hatnote to Lector is not necessary. Onel5969 TT me 16:46, 21 September 2021 (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: I would keep the article title as it is, even though I'm more hesistant in regards to articles about athletes using nicknames (because they aren't always widely known by the same nickname by everyone/or could have mutiple nicknames), but he seems to be widely known by this nickname enough to count as a commonly recognized name (even the Encyclopedia Britannica article title uses it). Clovermoss (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

checkY - yup. COMMONNAME is the overriding factor. Onel5969 TT me 11:51, 20 September 2021 (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:

I think that the second sentence in the second paragraph might be considered original research because it is offering an interepration of what is happening in the source. The rest of the paragraph seems to be fine, although in general I'd avoid using Fox News as a source (but since Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says that it's generally reliable outside of science and political topics, it should be fine here). The last paragraph is completely uncited and could be challenged as potentially controversial, so I'd remove it and ask the person who wrote it to add a citation to a reliable source. If it is true, "bedded" should be removed in the text, per WP:EUPH. Clovermoss (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY - The first paragraph is fine. The second isn't original research (remember, we WANT editors to put the information they get from secondary sources into their own words), but you are right, their interpretation does make it unsuitable, but due to NPOV. Yes, you could (and should) remove the last line, and then as per WP:BURDEN, it should not be re-added without a reliable source. Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 25 September 2021 (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 (nรฉe 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:

So the address and the phone number shouldn't be there per WP:BLPPRIVACY. I'd remove it then send an email to the email address listed at WP:OVERSIGHT regarding the edit that added that information. Everything else content-wise seems fine. Clovermoss (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 00:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


Images copyright[edit]

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


5. Could this image-1 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? and why?

Answer- Explanation: Yes, I think so, because according to this [19]; images from the Department of Defense are under the public domain unless noted otherwise, and I'm not seeing a noted otherwise. But this [20] looks like it can be more complicated than just being in the public domain, so I'd personally be cautious. I'd likely ask someone at WP:MIL first, because they're more likely to be more familar with the nuances that might be involved. Clovermoss (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain. Clovermoss (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

checkY - Any image from any US government agency is in the public domain and is safe to use. This is not true of other governments, but it is in the US. That additional info isn't about it being in the public domain, but how it can be used. My understanding of it is that while I could use the pic in an article, or the main page, I couldn't use it an advertisement for Wikipedia. Onel5969 TT me 12:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


6. Could this image-2 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? Why?

Answer- Explanation: Yes, I think so, because FreeImages contains files that are freely licensed and does not restrict commerical use. Clovermoss (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses. Clovermoss (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

checkY - clearly licensed for free use. Onel5969 TT me 12:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

7. Could this image-3 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? Why?

Answer- Explanation: Yes, because this image is in the public domain. Also, images on Wikimedia Commons are all freely-usable. Clovermoss (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Public_domain. Clovermoss (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 12:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

8. Could this image-4 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? Why?

Answer- Explanation: No, because it doesn't seem to be freely-licensed or in the public domain. Clovermoss (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing. Clovermoss (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

checkY - the site clearly shows a copyright, so no, it is not usable as a free image. Onel5969 TT me 12:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

9 Certain types of images are a giveaway of COI and/or paid editing, despite not being direct violations of our image policies. Can you guess what kinds of images these are?

I would assume that "official" photographs of BLPs would be a red flag for COI/paid editing. Clovermoss (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
checkY - not just the "official" part of photo, which is a giveaway, but also if the photo in the article was created by the editor. That shows a clear COI, since the editor knows the subject. And not just in BLPs, but this happens frequently in corporate articles as well. Nice job on this section. Onel5969 TT me 12:33, 29 October 2021 (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 9& 10 from a neutral point of view.

10. 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.

How I would rewrite the text:
She is a brilliant boxer. She became a professional boxer when she was 19 after winning an amateur fight on December 14, 2013.
Why I would rewrite the text this way:
"Rare and exceptional beauty" is subjective. I'm not sure why a brand promotion would be relevant; it seems unneeded, especially without context. "Talent and marketability made her a fighter to watch right out of the gate" is also subjective and the kind of thing you'd want to avoid when writing for an encyclopedia. Clovermoss (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
checkY, although I would also remove the "brilliant", as it is purely subjective (unless it is part of a quote, and attributed). You might also leave in the 20 seconds part (without, of course, the "destroyed"). Something like, "...after winning an amateur fight in 20 seconds on ..." Onel5969 TT me 12:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with removing the brilliant part, I meant to but I must have forgot. Thanks for the suggestion about the 20 seconds part, that's not something I would have thought of. I don't know much about boxing, but times seem to matter for most sports, so I can see why it would be important. Clovermoss (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

11. 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:

How I would rewrite the text:
He is a Bulgarian actor. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry at the age of 14. He has featured in 44 films.
Why I would rewrite the text this way:
"Loved by all" isn't neutral; "tender, innocent age" is unnessecary. Clovermoss (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 12:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

12. 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: Due weight is essentially making sure an article doesn't have content containing fringe theories that contradict what the majority of reliable sources say (e.g. you wouldn't write about the "benefits" of homeopathy in medicine because of WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS; but you would eventually get to homeopathy by going to the see also section and reading through alternative medicine. There, you'd get encylcopedic information about it as a form of pseudoscience). Clovermoss (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

No original research[edit]

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

13. In your own words, why is Wikipedia not a platform for publishing original research?

Answer: The best way I can think of explaining this is that Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original research because that isn't what an encyclopedia does. There's a lot that goes into this, but part of it is making sure you're not intrepetrating a source or making essay-like arguments and you're just summarizing what reliable sources say in your own words. Clovermoss (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

checkY - it's also a core part of WP:VERIFY, after the material is summarized, it should be footnoted. Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

14. In your own words, please provide one example with explanation when it is appropriate to insert an original content or synthesis in an article.

Answer: As far as I'm aware, it wouldn't be appropriate to insert original content or synthesis into an article. Unless original images are included under what is meant as original content (as well as everything else in the What is not original research section of WP:OR). According to WP:IMAGEOR, original images are fine as long as they don't include original research themselves and the images are relevant to the article in question. Clovermoss (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

checkY - this one is tricky, since, since WP:OR is pretty explicit. However, there are certain instances when what would normally be considered original research isn't. You nailed it with original images, as they are not considered OR. Also, routine calculations would fall into this category (although this is a sticky one, as one person's definition of "routine" might not be another's -- it's one of the reasons I usually leave reviewing math/physics articles to others). Also, translations from a foreign language are not OR. Finally, and this is the biggest one, are plot summaries for films/books/tv shows, etc. As per MOS:PLOT, summarized plots do not need to be referenced. Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

15. See this video and write an article paragraph that properly presents claims supported by the source. Assume that Alsuleiman's opinions are DUE for inclusion as part of this response.

Answer:

@Onel5969: I'm having a hard time with figuring out what I should write here. I think part of that has to do with how I'm not used to summarizing a video/interview source. I'm assuming I would start with something like "according to Alsuleiman" since at least in the religions I'm more familar with people tend to have different theological stances in regards to different issues. Or would you suggest a different approach? Clovermoss (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
No, that's exactly right, it would begin with "according to Alsuleiman" then you might include what Alsuleiman's credentials are, if he hasn't been discussed in the article already. Onel5969 TT me 22:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability[edit]

Please read WP:V and answer the questions below

16. In your own words, why does content in Wikipedia need to be verified?
Verifiability is important because it proves that content has some basis in reality and isn't just something that someone made up. Content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable because this is an encylopedia, which is a tertiary source of information. Being able to cite reliable sources is important in general, but even more so when that content has real-life ramifications like biographies of living people and world events. It would also be impratical for Wikipedia to even exist as a community of crowdsourced editors without a policy like verifiability because it would prevent people from effectively working together. If anyone could write original research into an article (which is something that Wikipedia is not for), it'd be hard to find consensus on what should even be in an article in the first place. Clovermoss (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
checkY - nicely done. Onel5969 TT me 09:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

17. Three independent, reliable sources say that a subject has 2 sons, but in reality he has 3 sons. Could we change the content from "2" sons to "3 sons"? Why?

If reliable sources only say that a subject has 2 sons, then no, the content cannot be changed to 3 sons. If this article was about a living (or recently) deceased person, I'd say that saying that the subject has 3 sons would violate WP:BLP because the information is contentious, unsourced, and directly contradicts cited reliable sources. Clovermoss (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
checkY - excellent. Onel5969 TT me 09:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
18. Looking at Saint-Germain River, the article cites two references. Please explain if you feel that the information in the article is acceptable as per WP:VERIFY.
The first source would not load for me, but I was able to access the second source that was cited. As far as I can tell, the content in that sentence is verifiable. At least the year is. However (I might be overthinking this), I'd likely be hesistant to add specific month-day-year written out if it it's not clear from the source if that how the numbered format is intended to be percieved. Clovermoss (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
checkY - It's a shame #1 would not load for you, since that was pretty much the purpose of this question. It's a link to an interactive map, which you then need to manipulate in order to research the river. Therefore, it would not meet WP:VERIFY. You need to be able to click on the source and go directly to the information cited. So for instance, there might be a link to a pdf file which is 400 pages long, if there is no page # in the citation, it does not pass verify. In this case, the link is to the database, but does not bring up the information in the article. I used this example on purpose, because this was a big discussion amongst several NPP editors, so it's perfect for Verify. The info verified in citation #2 can remain, but all else should be removed. Onel5969 TT me 09:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion[edit]

PART 2

We have looked at the requirements needed for a page to meet notability guidelines, content policies and the types of sources needed to merit a page in Wikipedia in Part 1 (Assignment 1, 2 & 3). In assignment 4, we look at what type of articles need to be filtered out from our system when reviewing a page. 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. Please set up your CSD log by installing MYCSD so that I can review your CSD nominations. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
  2. Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in your computer.
    • Bookmarked and I have an easily accessible link on my userpage. Clovermoss (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  3. Install CV-revdel. After saving, you may have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
    • I'm not sure I did this right: [21]. The line of thinking that I had is that I would want to add it on top of the CSD log code so that both would work, but I'm not sure if that's what I was supossed to do? Clovermoss (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

General criteria[edit]

1. Please review (G1-G14) at General and answer the following questions in your own words. When providing examples, be specific


No Criterion Application Example Mentor comments
1 G1 Nonsense This CSD criteria would be used if something is gibberish. Content written in a language other than English would not be gibberish. Poorly written English is also not gibberish. Gibberish would be something like random letters on a keyboard: ewqrgqfvudhluiwegf. Clovermoss (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC) checkY - perfect. Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
2 G2 Test page that isn't sandbox/userpage My understanding of this CSD criteria is that it is used if something is a test page but is outside the sandbox or userspace. So if someone tried to create a test page in the mainspace by mistake, you'd want to use G2? Clovermoss (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I attempted this for a talk page but honestly I regret it. It sent out an automatic message from Twinkle that wasn't really useful about content creation, and I prefer Liz's alternative of page blanking in this. If this was a mainspace article it'd make more sense, I suppose. It seems like potentially driving away people by using this in this case would be more of a unnecessary risk. Especially for a talk page, because they're likely to be eventually created anyways. Clovermoss (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 checkY - I focus on mainpage articles, but all speedy criteria are for all types of pages. The only page this does not apply to is a user's actual sandbox. If they create sub-sandbox pages, it would apply. Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
3 G3 Blatant vandalism or hoax The content is solely vandalism or a blatant hoax. If the hoax isn't blatant, it should be AfD'd. Articles about hoaxes that are notable do not qualify for this CSD criteria. Before CSDing for vandalism, I'd want to check the page history to make sure that it's actually been vandalism since the page has been created and not a recent thing that could be reverted and fixed. Clovermoss (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC) checkY Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
4 G4 Recreated deleted page This is if a page has been recreated that was deleted after a deletion discussion and is essentially identical to the prior version. If it's not essentially identical to the version that was deleted, a new deletion discussion is nessecary. Sometimes subjects that were not notable have become notable over time, etc, which is why that would be an important distinction. Content that has ben draftified or userified also doesn't qualify as long as it wasn't intended to "circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy". I will admit I'm a bit uncertain about what that quote means in practice since I haven't participated in many deletion discussions and what trying to circumvent that process would/wouldn't look like. Clovermoss (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - remember that since we are not admins, we cannot "see" deleted pages, so there is no way for us to know if the content is or is not "essentially identical". If an article has been afd'd, I almost always G4 it (unless the AfD is over 2 years old), and let the admin decide if it is identical or not. Regarding the draftify/userfy issue, that means if an article is deleted through AfD, but a user creates an article in draft or userspace, but does not move it to mainspace, it would not qualify for G4. Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
5 G5 Page created by a blocked or banned editor Specifically, pages that are in violation of that block or ban and where the editor in question is the only significant contributor. In violation of means after they've been block/banned, not before. It's not a retroactive thing. If someone's also no longer under those restrictions, this also doesn't apply. Pages created by confirmed sockpuppets could be G5'd. If the editor-in-question has a topic ban, the created page must go against that topic ban for this CSD criteria to be applicable. Clovermoss (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - this happens a lot with socks. Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
6 G6 Technical Pages that should be deleted for technical reasons and that deletion would be considered uncontroversial. An example would be deleting a redirect so that a page can be moved to that title. I don't think this would be applicable if that page move could potentially be controversial, though. There are other reasons for technical deletions, such as if there's nothing in a maintenance category for May 3, 2018. There's no reason for that to exist since May 3, 2018, has already occured. Clovermoss (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
7 G7 Author request If a page only has one author, they can nominate a page as G7. If they blank the page, G7 can also be used. If there are significant contributions by more than one editor, this CSD criteria cannot be used. This also can't be used by someone who is not the sole author when the sole author hasn't shown any indication they want the page to be deleted (e.g. hasn't blanked the page themselves or replaced the text with "please delete this"). Clovermoss (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC) checkY Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
8 G8 Dependant on a deleted page or a page that doesn't exist The most common example of a G8 that I can think of that I've actually seen used are deleting talk pages of articles that have been deleted after going through AfD. A redirect to an article that's been deleted or doesn't exist would be another example. Clovermoss (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - yup, those are the two most common
9 G9 Office actions A criteria that I would never use because I'm not part of the Wikimedia Foundation office staff. A sysop musn't reverse this kind of deletion without permission from the WMF. Clovermoss (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - and you're right, I've never used G9 myself, either. Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
10 G10 Pages that are only meant to attack/harass/threaten You'd want to check the page history for this too, because it's possible that it's recent vandalism instead of being there since the page has been created. If it is vandalism, depending on the content you might want to consider making a revdel or oversight request. But if a page was created this way and its only purpose was to attack/harrass/threaten you'd want to nominate said page for G10. Clovermoss (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - nice on the revdel issue as well. Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
11 G11 Blatant spam, promotion, or advertising A.k.a. THISBUSINESS is the best and offers the best quality service to customers in X field. We're way better than Y, our competitor. They don't hold a candle to our craftmanship and dedication. We have a money back guarentee...

Something that reads exactly like an ad might also be a copyright violation (G12), in addition to being advertising. Another hint that something is intended as promotion/advertising would be if this article is created by someone with a username like THISBUSINESSEMPLOYEE.

Promotion can also be for a non-profit or advocacy for a cause, it doesn't just have to be for-profit businesses. An article simply about a business or organization that exists and is described neutrally does not qualify for G11. If I don't think that it meets WP:NCORP I can start an AfD after following WP:BEFORE. Clovermoss (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

checkY - doesn't necessarily have to be about a business/organization. Could also be about a person. e.g. "Billy X is running for mayor of Anywhere USA. He'd make a great mayor." Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
12 G12 Blatant copyright violations Check the page history for this one as well, if the content containing the copyright violation wasn't there from the start, those specific revisions can be revdelled. Also make sure that the copyright violation isn't a "false positive" because it's from a site from mirrors Wikipedia content. Some signs of this is language like "we", "all rights reserved", a high match percentage from Earwig's copyright violation tool, etc. Clovermoss (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - also be be careful it wasn't copied from another WP page, which still has to be attributed, but does not count as a Copyvio. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Also, many times if there is a portion of an article which is a copyvio, I remove that and ask for a revdel. For example, quite a few film articles are fine, except for the plot, which has been copied from imdb or some other source. I'll remove the plot, but let the rest of the article stand. Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
13 G13 Abandoned drafts Drafts that haven't been edited in six months can be deleted under G13. They can also be undeleted by making a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. In my opinion, it's a good idea to check whether these drafts could potentially be salvageable before deleting them, just because the original editor losing interest doesn't nessecarily mean it doesn't have the potential to be something more (as long as it's about a notable subject). Clovermoss (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC) checkY Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
14 G14 Disambiguation page that isn't a disambiguation page For disambiguation pages that don't meet the purpose of disambiguation pages. If there's only one article subject, a disambiguation page is pointless. If there's no disambiguation, it's a disambiguation page that isn't a disambiguation page. I'm a bit confused about some of the other ways this applies, because I've never seen a redirect that uses (disamiguation)? I'm not sure about the situations where a redirect like that would be useful, but the impression I got after reading about this CSD criteria is that if that kind of redirect doesn't actually link to a disambiguation page, it can be G14'd. Clovermoss (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - Regarding your question. At the top of the article sometimes there are hatnotes, if the hatnote is a dab, as per WP, that hatnote should be have (disambiguation) in it, so as to not confuse a researcher. Sometimes these are made, and then the dab becomes useless, and they should be deleted. It's rare. Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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. When providing examples, be specific.


No Criterion Application Example Mentor comments
1 A1 No context The content of an article being "My favourite band is amazing" with a title of "My favourite band" has no context about what the article is referring to. A1s should not be tagged immediately after being created because someone might still be working on them. Also, in contrast with the CSD criteria that start with G (general/all pages), A only applies to mainspace articles. A1s by their very nature have to be quite short. I'd imagine that A1s are relatively rare because usually the article title would give some kind of context to whatever the article is about and because articles aren't immediately created in mainspace by inexperienced editors the way they were prior to WP:ACTRIAL. A7s would likely be more common. Clovermoss (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC) checkY Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
2 A2 An article in a different language that already exists on another project An article in a different language that already exists on another project. An example would be if someone went to the fr.wikipedia and copied an article there or created an article that was basically the same. If it's not, the {{Not english}} template should be used. Honestly I'd be cautious with this CSD criteria because unless it's a language you speak, it's basically impossible to tell if it's an article is basically the same as one that already exists unless it was directly copy-and-pasted content. This CSD criteria would also not be applicable for pages translated into English. Articles like that are suitable for mainspace as long as it meets our notability requirements. If it's not properly attributed, fix that and let the editor know how they can do so in the future. {{Translated page}} should also be placed on the talk page. Clovermoss (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - although these are not that difficult to spot, although rare.Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
3 A3 No content Different from A1. No content means that there's literally no content in an article. An example would be if someone created a page in mainspace and all that was in it was Category:Bridges. Or a see also section. But the key thing is that there's no content that makes it an article in itself. If there's a single sentence that isn't a rephrase of the title it would not be an A3. It might be an A1 or A7, depending on what sentence says, though. Don't nominate this for CSD within a few minutes of creation because it's possible someone accidently hit publish too soon and actually is going to include content. Clovermoss (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - spot on.Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
5 A5 Only dictionary definition When an article's content is only a dictionary definition and doesn't have any encyclopedic content. Articles about words can exist (e.g. Geek), so if it isn't a clearcut dictionary definition that's already included at wikitionary, this CSD criteria does not apply. If it's not included in wikitonary but is just a dictionary defintion, it can be transwikied. If it's more than a dictionary definition but not nessecarily notable, it can be nominated at Afd after following the WP:BEFORE process. Clovermoss (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - exactly the process you need to go through to decide how to handle this. Nice. Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
7 A7 No claims of importance The threshold for meeting this is lower than verifiability, the reliability of sources, or even notability in itself. An article nominated for A7 should have no claims of importance. This claim doesn't nessecarily need to be true or verifiable, it just needs to exist within the article. The CSD page as written makes it clear that educational institutions are also exempted from this. If there's any doubt about whether something in an article is a claim of importance, it'd be better to follow BEFORE and then nominate the article for AfD. I'd be really cautious with this CSD criteria in general, although all speedy deletion nominations should be decisions made with care. Clovermoss (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - an example of what wouldn't meet A7 is "xxxxx is the mayor of podunkville." While they may not be notable (or they may), being the mayor is significant.Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
9 A9 Musical recordings that have no indication of importance This would be an article or a list where there's no claims of importance (which would disqualify it from A7 and A9) and none of artists that contributed to the recording have an article. An example of a claim of importance would be if one of the artists was in the Hall of Fame, regardless of whether or not that's verifiable, because notability/verifiability doesn't need to be established for speedy deletion criteria to not apply. I do have a question about all this, though. Why do we have a seperate CSD criteria for musical recording-related articles? Is there overlap with A7 at all, or am I missing something? Clovermoss (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of it from the angle of a claim of importance, since the CSD criteria mention whether or not a subject is notable/verifiable is a distinct concept from what qualifies for speedy deletion. Do you think it works from that angle? I'm aware that it's not nessecarily enough from a notability perspective since notability isn't inherited, more of a hint that there might be more sources about the recording compared to a self-published artist that just published their first song. Clovermoss (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 checkY - remember that notability is not inherited. It doesn't matter if the artist is in the hall of fame or not. The song has to be notable in and of itself. For example, not every song by Bruce Springsteen is automatically notable (although they all probably pass GNG simply because of the volume of stuff written about him). I don't know the rationale for the separate deletion category, but most likely it arose due to some discussions during the deletion process. The key here is that none of the artists are notable enough on their own. If any of the artists have an article, or the song is from an album, redirecting as an ATD is preferred. Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
10 A10 Duplicate article that is an implausible redirect and can't be merged A duplicate article that would be an implausible redirect (e.g. S1RAWBERRZ for Strawberry) and doesn't have any content that could be seen as an improvement. If there is content that is useful, the article can be merged. Disambiguation pages are exempted from this. Clovermoss (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC) checkY Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
11 A11 Clearly invented An article whose author discovered/made something, or someone the author knows and doesn't have any claims of importance. An example of this would be "I made a sculpture that was pretty cool" with an article title of "My art project". Blatant hoaxes do not fall under this criteria, those would be G3s. Clovermoss (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC) checkY Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
12 R2 Cross-namespace redirects in specific circumstances The wording of this is a bit confusing, but the impression I recieved after reading this was that cross-namespace redirects can be speedily deleted in certain circumstances. An example would be a mainspace redirect to a userpage or the file namespace. But mainspace redirects can be used for Category, Wikipedia, Template, Help and Portal namespaces. Some of these would likely be more likely than others (I have a difficult time imagining how a mainspace redirect to a portal would be useful, but maybe it's possible). Just because a redirect can't be speedily deleted doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed at RfD, though, if there is some potential issue with it. Clovermoss (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC) checkY - the most common of these is when a page in mainspace gets moved to draft, leaving a redirect behind. The redirect then needs to be deleted. Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
13 R3 Implausible typo that's not the result of a page move A redirect created that's an implausible title and not the result of a page move. S1RAWBERRZ redirecting to Strawberry would be an example of an implausible typo. Clovermoss (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC) checkY Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Live CSD practice[edit]

Please read WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD 11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol section). Please provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. Don't rush this, but when you have 5, I'll check.
@Onel5969: I just wanted to say that I have been checking the New Pages Feed somewhat frequently. My perception of somewhat frequently is once or twice a day since this section started. I haven't noticed any blatantly obvious G11's yet (the ones I've noticed in the past have always been in userspace, not mainspace). I will say that I have found the New Pages Feed interesting. I've been watchlisting certain new articles to see if my accessment of certain situations is correct. But I'm also just cautious in general. I appreciate the "don't rush this advice", I just wanted you to know that I'm taking it into consideration. Clovermoss (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. Draft:KANIKA KHANNA - checkY Onel5969 TT me 20:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  2. Draft:Why automation necessary ? - checkY Onel5969 TT me 20:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  3. Draft:Bees Network Ltd. - checkY Onel5969 TT me 20:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  4. Draft:Outpost gallery - checkY Onel5969 TT me 20:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  5. Draft:Pixaya - Distance Learning Institute - obviously all were deleted, so nice job. checkY Onel5969 TT me 20:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violations[edit]

Please read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and answer the questions below.
2. When do we nominate a page for WP:G12 and when do we WP:REVDEL the COPYVIO text?

Pages can be nominated for G12 if it's been a copyright violation from the start. A related file CSD criteria would be F9. Revision deletion is for copyright violations that are contained within certain diffs. Revision deletion is also used for other things, but revdel for copyright violations is the only one that can be requested through Twinkle's interface. Clovermoss (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

checkY - remember that when you request a revdel, it has to go all the way back to when the copyright material was added, to the most current edit.Onel5969 TT me 10:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
3. What constitutes copyright infringement/violation. Please give 5-8 examples
  1. Directly copy-and-pasting content word for word
  2. Close paraphasing (changing one or two words but not rewriting content in your own words)
  3. Uploading a photograph taken by someone else that doesn't fall under our non-free image policy
  4. Uploading a file as "your own work" when it's actually content that is in the public domain
  5. Using text that's in the public domain but not citing it
checkY Onel5969 TT me 10:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
4. What are some examples of cases where it is ok to have exact copies of text from sources in an article? Please provide three examples.
  1. Brief quotations that can't be paraphrased and where it's important to preserve the wording of the original text. It should be clear that these are quotes, using quotation marks or {{blockquote}} with a citation.
  2. Copying content between articles, as long as it isn't a WP:POVFORK and is properly attributed by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
  3. Facts like "Justin Trudeau was the 23rd prime minister of Canada" or "the sky is blue". But anything that can be considered a creative idea like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously",[1]: 116  must be cited.
  4. Re-using text that's in the public domain, as long as it is properly attributed

References

  1. ^ Chomsky, Noam (September 1956). "Three Models for the Description of Language" (PDF). IRE Transactions on Information Theory. 2 (3): 113โ€“124. doi:10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813.
checkY - also, on your first one, quotes need to be footnoted.Onel5969 TT me 10:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
5. Why do copyright violations need to be removed from Wikipedia and who determines when a violation is lawfully taking place?

Copyright violations need to be removed from Wikipedia because that's legally important. Copyright violations are unlawful in jurisidictions that care about intellectual property. These inner workings of what exactly constitutes a copyright violation can vary because of that (such as when something qualifies for the public domain, whether you can take a picture of building at night, Fair dealing compared to Fair use, etc). My understanding is that content hosted by the WMF needs to follow American laws, yes? That's why we're able to host a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night in that very article (WP:DERIVATIVE)? As for the who, it's the community, isn't it? Obviously admins are the only ones who can actually perform certain actions like revision deletion and page deletion, but we can do stuff through the CSD process and requesting revdel for copyright violations through Twinkle. My understanding is that in certain cases WMF staff will take office actions regarding copyright violations but that doesn't typically happen. But as for the "lawfully taking place" part, we're not lawyers or able to give legal advice per the legal disclaimer, so that wouldn't really be anyone, would it? Clovermoss (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

checkY -- you have a very nice grasp of the importance of Copyvios and revdels. WMF and WP have different standards, but they are similar. Since WM is headquartered in the US, the overriding law is U.S., but as per WP:COPYRIGHT, "Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States." Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
6. Please read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and provide 5 successful CSD 12 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. You can use Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool to check if an article is in violation of COPYVIO.
  1. Draft:Kolanupaka -- checkY Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  2. Draft:Outpost gallery -- checkY Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  3. Draft:IBOO SAIT (TIGER OF NILGIRIS)1889 -- checkY Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  4. Draft:Farmworker Justice -- checkY Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  5. Draft:Aziz (supercomputer) -- checkY Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
7. Pls provide 5 successful CSD in any criteria except WP:G11, WP:G12 and WP:G13 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Please provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer i: Chosun University High School (R2)

checkY - obviously.Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


Answer ii: BABB Limited (G8)

checkY - obviously.Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


Answer iii: He defecated through a sunroof (R3)

checkY Onel5969 TT me 05:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)



Answer iv: 110 countries (R3)

checkYOnel5969 TT me 20:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


Answer v: 109 countries (R3)

checkYOnel5969 TT me 20:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)



8. Please read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT. Please explain when to a new page (NPP article) can be nominated for CSD R2 and what should be considered when doing such move?

Answer: The most common reason someone would use R2 is when new articles are "draftified" by being moved from mainspace to draftspace. Since there shouldn't be redirects from mainspace to draftspace, R2 can be used on the remaining redirect. My understanding is that if someone has the pagemover userright, they can actually surpress this redirect as a result of a page move and prevent the need for this. Other situations you could use R2 involve cross-namespace redirects from mainspace to elsewhere (like userspace) although there's some exceptions to keep in mind there. Category:Cross-namespace redirects lists examples of allowable cross-namespace redirects. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

checkY - yes, when you have the pagemover right, you can choose not to leave a redirect behind. The two tools that NPPer's can use to draftify are very handy. But this is the biggest use of R2.Onel5969 TT me 22:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)



9. Please read and A1-A11 and R2 at WP:CSD and and provide 5 successful "Article CSD" articles (with at least two of them are CSD A7) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Please provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.


Answer i CSD A7: Kapil Mithal

checkY - obviously.Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


Answer ii CSD A7: Yesuvan Josuva

checkY - almost missed this one.Onel5969 TT me 16:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


Answer iii CSD R2: Cameron Joey Koo/Zumurrud Khatun Mosque and Mausoleum

checkY - obviously.Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


Answer iv CSD R2: Intellectual Property: Litigation, Legislation, and Education

checkY - obviously.Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


Answer v any criteria: Root Of Darkness (A3). I was cautious especially because of your recent advice about waiting but I looked at WP:A3 and I think what I did was okay in this context. The article consisted of the title and an external link about a half hour after creation and the note at A3 says "though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice". Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

checkY - no issue with this either.Onel5969 TT me 22:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


Conflicts of interest and paid editors[edit]

Please read WP:NPPCOI, WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question
11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?

Answer: That's a complicated question. Some tells can be quite obvious (e.g. language like "we're the best xyz company", referencing a lot of company publications, information they aren't likely to know unless they know the subject of the article). However, my understanding is that it's not always that easy to tell. I've never really been that great at it but I've got the impression that this sort of thing become easier with time and experience (but also that it's kind of an evolving process because COI/PAID editors can change their stradegies). It's important to recognize because undisclosed paid editing is against our terms of use. Some more nuanced tells might be creating an article immediately after being granted autoconfirmed so the AfC process can by bypassed or an article that "seems to be good to be true". At the same time, I don't want to be making unnessecary accusations. Wikipedia has been around for longer than I have been alive and people aren't always clueless. So in general I tend to leave anything that seems off but in a way I'm not quite sure why to more experienced reviewers. I doubt I'm anywhere near ready to investigate something that's complicated like this. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  • checkY - it is hard. And I am not the best at it either. I probably draftify several every day for COI/UPE, but that's out of the hundreds I look at. The biggest key, and this is something I don't normally publish on WP, for I don't want UPE/COI editors to get hints at how to evade detection, is the photo. First, if the article creator has uploaded the photo, COI/UPE. Sometimes it turns out that the editor is simply a fan who took the photo at a public event, but you can usually tell those. Usually, it is someone connected to the subject of the article. Whenever I draftify those, I make sure I put "Segregate UPE/COI" in the edit summary. Lately, UPE/COI editors are catching on, so they will create a separate account, upload the photo, then add it to their article. So I check the photo history and see if the photo was uploaded during the time frame the article was created. If so, UPE/COI. Those are the easy tells, after that, it is the behavior and verbiage you note above that are relied on.Onel5969 TT me 18:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
12. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?

Answer: Personally I skip over reviewing articles like that when I notice them because I'm worried that maybe there's something like covert advertising I'm missing, it just seems better to leave that to a more experienced reviewer in regards to those concerns. However, if I was to do something like this, there are several things I would likely keep in mind. It would be really important to take a detailed look at the references (sometimes they don't even mention the subject per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nithra Apps). Another thing to look for would be if the page would qualify for G11. If it doesn't and it's about a company or service (like a lot of COI articles are), try to determine if it's likely to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. If it's notable, I could use {{connected contributor}}. If it's not, I could try PROD or AfD. I can also place {{uw-coi}} on the creator's user talk page. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

checkY - There is nothing wrong with your approach above. Personally, I always draftify COI editing.Onel5969 TT me 20:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
13. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor?

Answer: Similar to the COI example above, but again, I would very likely leave it to a more experienced reviewer. Something I forgot to mention is that in certain circumstances, starting a thread at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard might be warranted. As for paid editors, if I suspect undisclosed paid editing, I'd use {{uw-paid}} on their talk page. Similar process to above for G11, checking refs closely, applicability of PROD/AfD, {{connected contributor}}, etc. Am I missing something? Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

checkY - Again, there is nothing wrong with your approach above. Personally, just like with COI editing, I always draftify UPE editing. I use the older draftify tool, and have a series of specialized messages for different types of draftification, including one for COI/UPE editing.Onel5969 TT me 20:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Additional COI practice[edit]

For each of the following prompts, identify how likely it is that the described behavior is COI or PAID editing (not COI/unlikely/possible/likely/very likely), as well as what measures would be appropriate to take (both in terms of messages sent to the involved editors and whether to approve/delete/draftify/tag the article). Don't assume any information about the scenarios beyond what is written: if you feel like you would need additional information to provide a proper answer, describe the various outcomes you would consider based on additional hypothetical evidence.

1. An editor makes 10 edits to a variety of articles, then creates an article about an obscure businessperson in a single edit, and does not make any additional edits for 3 months. The article appears to meet notability guidelines.
The 10 edits (for WP:AUTOCONFIRMED) and single edit article creation are red flags but usually I'd try to err on the side of assuming good faith. This could potentially be UPE but it may also not be. In this situation, I'd likely closely check refs to see if they're actually WP:SIGCOV (since it appears to meet notability guidelines). I'd also closely watch for promotional language. I'd ask the creator to disclose a connection if they have one. I'd likely leave it for another reviewer but if I notice anything weird I'd post a comment on the talk page. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
checkY - AGF is all well and good, but this is one of the most clear indications of UPE/COI editing (or socking, for that matter). The single greatest advantage of autoconfirmed is the ability to create new articles, so UPE/COI editors know this and go through the 10 edits in order to get to their main objective. Your assessment that it could be innocent might be true, but then you add the dead giveaway that once the article is created, the editor goes dormant. By the way, don't know whether or not I've mentioned this, but if you ever want to go more in-depth about any of the questions/answers/my responses, don't hesitate to take it to the talk page.Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
2. An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics makes a new article in a small amount of edits about a new TV show. The article is not neutrally written. Since having finished the article, the editor has continued to make a handful of contributions to other articles.
I think it's incredibly unlikely that there's a COI connection in this situation. The editor in question likely heard about the new TV show on the news or are a fan of it (which could be why the article sounds promotional). This may be a case where draftifying would be a good idea, encouraging the creator to write with a neutral point of view. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
checkY - You could also simply tag it for POV and move on. I usually do that, then review again in a week, and at that point, if no improvement has been made, draftify.Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
3. An editor makes 10 edits to articles about locations in Georgia, then creates a meticulously sourced article about a species of tree native to Georgia in a single 50,000 byte edit. They have not made any additional edits since then.
This is another situation where I think it's incredibly unlikely to be COI/UPE. It just seems like someone whose from Georgia. They may have used preview a lot or written the article off-wiki. My main concern would be making sure there aren't any copyright violations or that it isn't an unattributed copy of content from elsewhere on-wiki. If the article wasn't about a tree but about an obscure startup company, I'd likely be way more skeptical. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
checkY - yup. Usually this means that they finally came across a subject that really interests them.Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
4. An editor with the username "ApuOcalanPKKForever" creates a biography about a Turkish dissident. The article is not neutrally written.
This sounds like a fairly clear cut case of WP:G10. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
checkY - simply tag NPOV. This is not COI. Not sure why you felt that it was G10 material. While it may not be neutral, the example did not say it was negative.
I took it as negative for some reason. Looking back, I think the combination of that assumption and seeing dissident, with forever in their username, likely prompted to me to think that it was an attack BLP with a political motivation. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
5. A new editor with the username "BillieFan214" writes a non-neutral article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it
I think it's highly unlikely that there is a COI/UPE connection in this situation. An upcoming album might mean that sources lack significant coverage until it is actually out. I can't tell the future, but she's a fairly well-known musician so chances are that if the sources don't exist for it now, they might later. I might draftify this but I might not depending on the sourcing. If I did, I'd add {{promising draft}} and leave a comment encouraging the creator to use more neutral language. Hopefully they'd come back to it. I'd watchlist the page to see if anyone continues to edit it and I'd like to think that I'd rescue the draft before G13 applies if adequate sources exists and move it to mainspace (obviously making it more in line with NPOV in the process). Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
checkY - COI/UPE's rarely use something so blatant.Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
6. A new editor with the username "BEOfficial" writes an article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it.
I'd make a report at WP:UAA because their username suggests an official connection with Bille Eilish and this is more likely a case of impersonation than actual COI/UPE. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
checkY - definitely report to UAA, but this is more often than not a sign of UPE/COI editing.Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
7. Over the course of 5 years, an editor writes several articles about a small group of academics and their business ventures. The articles are well-sourced and neutrally written. You've come across their most recent creation, which appears to be notable. Every single article that they've edited in the past five years appears to be somehow related to this group of academics
I thought about this one for awhile. I'd likely start a thread at the COI noticeboard outlining my observations with diffs. Something that's been going on for 5 years is a long time and getting second opinions/more eyes on any potentially nessecary cleanup would be a good thing. Out of all the examples listed here so far, I think this is one of the most likely to be UPE, but I'd want an accessment of this particular situation from people more familar with identifying that. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
checkY - yup, this is the other type of COI editor. More than likely it is someone who has a close connection to the group, and is creating these articles. While not UPE, this is most likely a colleague of those they are writing about, perhaps even one of them. In addition to the COIN report, either tag or draftify (personally I'd draftify, but that's me).Onel5969 TT me 22:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
8. An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics named "Ismail Oyo" makes a new article about a notable businessperson from Nigeria, and claims the photo in the infobox as their own work.
The photo in the infobox being their own work strongly implies a COI connection because unless they're lying about the licensing, they likely know the subject in some capacity to be able to take a photograph (unless it's taken at like a public event where the photographer could be among an audience or something like that). There may be UPE involved ("use this photo for my Wikipedia article"). Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
What action, if any, would you take?Onel5969 TT me 13:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
9. An editor with 50 edits to a variety of topics is named "StacyRichardson". Included among these edits are the creation of two new articles about businesspeople from Russia. You are reviewing the most recent article, and it does not appear to be notable, although it is neutrally written.
Possible COI/UPE, so I'd leave a message at their talk page encouraging them to disclose a connection if they have one. Since the subject does not appear to be notable, maybe try PROD or AFD? Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
checkY - while the Prod/AfD is okay due to the notability concerns, to me the most major concern is the UPE/COI. This is typical UPE behavior. I personally would draftify it, and mark it as UPE/COI. Although you could simply add the COI/UPE tag and leave it unreviewed.Onel5969 TT me 13:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
10. An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with less than 50 edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked for sockpuppeting. The subject appears notable.
Well I can't see deleted articles but it could be a recreation of the article by the sockpuppeter. Filing a report at WP:SPI and mentioning the sockpuppeter's and potential sockpuppeter's interest in the subject would likely be a good idea. From a reviewing standpoint, I'd likely want to use G5, right? Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
checkY - although you couldn't G5 it until after the SPI investigation is over and sockpuppetry is proven.Onel5969 TT me 13:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
11. An article is moved from draftspace by an AfC reviewer with several thousand edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked as NOTHERE. The subject does not appear to meet GNG.
The main thing an AfC reviewer is meant to look for is if articles have a decent chance of being kept in an AfD discussion. If I do not think that is the case, I could open an AfD. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
checkY - You'll get to know AfC reviewers over time. Some I have zero issue with (they can be my wing man anytime Face-smile.svg), others, you'll find that they may have some of their articles AfD'd after they move it to mainspace. And others, who don't last too long at AfC, have a lot of issues.Onel5969 TT me 13:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
12. An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with a few hundred edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by an account that has been blocked for violating CIVIL. The subject is a borderline case for notability.
This seems like a case of WP:DRAFTOBJECT. If it's borderline case for notablility, maybe start an AfD? I try to avoid conflict so I'd probably not do that but I also wouldn't be likely to review it. At the same time, borderline implies that it still fits within the notability guidelines, even if it barely meets that requirement. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
checkY - simply follow normal NPP procedure. DRAFTOBJECT would only apply if the article had been moved from mainspace to draft to start with, which is not the case in this example.Onel5969 TT me 13:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Filtering - Deletion policy & other alternatives[edit]

In assignment 4, we looked at articles which meetWP:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) and which can be deleted promptly after nomination. In Assignment 5, we discuss the 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: It's for uncontroversial deletion so I haven't really had a chance to use it that much. Usually at least the creator of the article would object and PROD tags can be removed by anyone. One situation where I could see an author potentially not objecting if they've been on Wikipedia a really long time and articles they created years ago no longer meet certain SNGs like NFOOTBALL. I think another situation I might use it if an article isn't overtly promotional enough for G11 but also clearly does not meet WP:NCORP. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

checkY - although I never consider whether or not the article creator will object, simply for the reason you spell out above.Onel5969 TT me 11:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


2. What should we do before we PROD a page? And what should be considered during a nomination?

Answer: Check to see if the page has been proposed for deletion before because that automatically disqualifies it from being considered an uncontroversial deletion. Something else to consider is whether there's anything about the page that would make its deletion controversial and therefore use a different process like AfD. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

checkY - that's part of it. You also need to check to make sure that it's never been AfD'd before (if it has and was deleted, it may be eligible for CSD under G4). You also should check edit history to make sure the page hasn't been vandalized. This is rare, but it does happen. For instance, someone writes a short article about someone who clearly passes WP:NSCHOLAR, another editor (usually an ip) comes along and simply re-writes the article about some schmo that lives in his neighborhood. The revised version is not notable, but the original is. I also do a cursory WP:BEFORE to see if there is coverage about the subject.Onel5969 TT me 11:17, 19 June 2023 (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: The main difference between BLPPROD and the PROD process is that BLPPROD requires no sources in any form (external links, etc). So if the criteria for BLPPROD isn't applicable, a regular PROD is one alternative. Another alternative is AfD if there has been a previous contested PROD. I could also improve the article myself if my WP:BEFORE process provides enough reliable sources to do so or place an approriate tag for someone else to do so (and maybe write a talk page comment about the sources I found that may be helpful). If I notice any material that goes against what's written at WP:BLP, I should remove it. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

checkY - yeah, it's pretty straightforward. Follow up question - without looking, if an article has been tagged BLPProd, and the tag is removed after a source has been added, can it still be nominated for PROD?Onel5969 TT me 16:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


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

Answer:



5 How long do PROD, BLPPROD and AFD last before it is deleted or decline?

Answer:




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:



7. What are the reason to WP:Merge a page to another page?

Answer:




8. List 10 reasons we may WP:REDIR instead of deleting.

Answer:

9. 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:


10. When can an article be moved to draft space?

Answer:

Additional questions about Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they relate to deletion discussions
1. In your own words, describe the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. Also explain briefly how references to each of these may be used in deletion discussions

Answer:

2. Some WikiProjects have published essays on notability for topics related to their project, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. As a new page reviewer, how should you use such essays?

Answer:

3. When evaluating notability, are you primarily evaluating the article, or the article's subject?

Answer:

4. What is your interpretation of the role of WP:BURO and WP:IAR in new page patrol and deletion discussions?

Answer:



11. Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanations for your nominations. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer 1: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willem Ouweneel

  • checkY - obviously, since it was deleted. Nice job.Onel5969 TT me 00:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


Answer 2: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Order of St. Luke the Physician


Answer 3: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid fans


Answer 4: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incarcerated musicians. I should have likely been more careful in my nomination statement for this one, as I linked the wrong policy shortcut. It's possible that I may have been too broad in my interpretation of WP:BLPCAT but I still think there is some merit to my argument. In a similar situation it'd likely be a good idea to be relatively concise and focus on WP:NLIST, WP:CROSSCAT and WP:COATRACK with minimial participation after that? Or am I being too harsh on myself here? Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

checkY - Yeah, it's important to be precise in your nominating statement, but I think your interaction with Doomsdayer laid out your reasoning well. When your rationale is legitimately questioned, do not hesitate to respond and expand your position, like you did here.Onel5969 TT me 16:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


Answer 5:



12. 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: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danial Zakaria

checkY - spot on analysis.Onel5969 TT me 09:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)



Answer 2: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xclusive Yachts

checkY - Entrepreneur is definitely not a reliable source. A key giveaway is when a site says, "Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own."Onel5969 TT me 09:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


Answer 3: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six phases of a big project

checkY - Nicely thought out rationale with your !vote.Onel5969 TT me 02:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


Answer 4:



Answer 5:



13. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer 1: Jacques Hiron

  • checkY - This is an outstanding prod. This article has been around for 15 years and it took that long for someone to even it tag it for improvement. A WP:BEFORE turned up zero in-depth coverage of this author.Onel5969 TT me 11:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Seems like we both missed a previous PROD from 2008 in the page history. But if that hadn't happened then yes, I agree that my line of thought was on the right track here. Clovermoss๐Ÿ€ (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Actually, we didn't miss it. The edit summary for the prod didn't mention that the edit was prodding the article. Although the edit removing the prod did mention it.Onel5969 TT me 17:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Answer 2: Robert Zika

  • checkY - Obviously, since it was deleted.Onel5969 TT me 08:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


14. Nominate 2 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer 1:



Answer 2:



15.Nominate 2 article for WP:NPPDRAFT and state your reasons. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer 1:



Answer 2:



Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Onel5969/Clovermoss/NPP&oldid=1191193522"