User:Rosguill/Eyebeller NPPSCHOOL

Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. 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).

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 School, 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.

If both the instructor and student make completing the course curriculum a top priority, it will generally take around a month to go through the entirety of the curriculum. This pace is not required or necessarily expected, but rather is provided in order to give participants an idea of what to expect.

Notability

Extended content

PART 1 Questions Question 1 In your own words, how is notability defined on Wikipedia? I would define notability as how significant a subject is and whether there are enough sources to write a whole article on it, or whether it should be part of another article. For a subject to have its own article, it needs to have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Eyebeller 23:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Y 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? Wikipedia is not a place for do-it-yourself instructions, so this topic will not be a notable one. Eyebeller 23:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Y 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? You use WP:GNG but you also look at the subject-specific notability guidelines for subject-specific policy on notability. Sometimes this additional criteria can be a general guidance, sometimes it can be more restrictive. Eyebeller 23:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Y Good work. On to the set of questions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Subject-specific notability guidelines 1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines) into the following three categories Primarily additional criteria that are likely to indicate notability Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Y Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) Y Wikipedia:Notability (books) Y Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) Y Wikipedia:Notability (people) Y Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Y Wikipedia:Notability (web) Y Primarily additional considerations that define or restrict the nature of coverage or sources required Wikipedia:Notability (events) Y Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Y Even mix of the previous two categories Wikipedia:Notability (films) Y Wikipedia:Notability (music) Y Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) Y 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? The SNGs provide indiciations on when a subject may be notable. In effect, when a subject meets one of these SNGs, there are most likely going to have significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources and that the article subject will be notable enough, however, this isn't always the case and you should check the sources youself. Eyebeller 10:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Y correct. The extent to which you should second guess an SNG will vary on a case by case basis. For subjective SNG criteria such as NACTOR's criterion of "multiple significant roles in notable films", you should assess the strength of the case for meeting that criterion alongside the availability of coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 16:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Scenarios 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. Scenario 1 An editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2020 without providing any sources Not notable without sources, but it should be very easy to find sources. No need to delete the article, just add sources. Eyebeller 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Y, now what if you came across "2040 Summer Olympics"? signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Delete since the location hasn't even been announced. Eyebeller 18:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC) This was a bit of a trick question because we haven't covered alternatives to deletion yet, but future instances of regularly scheduled notable events are redirected back to the base article if they are not yet notable themselves. So the correct answer here is to redirect 2040 Summer Olympics to Summer Olympics signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 6 January 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. Not notable, seems like something trivial per WP:SIRS. Eyebeller 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Y Scenario 3 Movsar Evloev who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 12-0. Per WP:SPORTSPERSON, sources should exist. Eyebeller 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Y, because we have a more specific SNG for MMA fighters, we should defer to WP:NMMA. Amusingly, when this question was first written a year and a half ago, the answer was no, as Evloev did not meet that guideline yet. However, as of July 2020, he now has completed 3 UFC fight night matches and does meet NMMA. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 6 January 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. Should not be an article per WP:NFF. Eyebeller 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Y 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. Per WP:POLITICIAN, needs to have received significant press coverage. Eyebeller 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Y Scenario 6 A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify. Probably not notable as they don't meed any criteria at WP:SINGER. Eyebeller 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Y

Sources

Background for trainees

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

1.

Topic	Definition	5 Examples	Comment by Trainer
Reliable source	A source where any information obtained from it is trustworthy and does not need additional verification. This includes organisations with strict publication rules and peer-reviewed sources.	(example)The Guardian newspaper BBC News Ofcom The Daily Telegraph The Times An independent research paper	Y I'd hesitate to use language like any information...is trustworthy, as for particularly controversial claims we do cross reference reliable sources, and reliable sources often make claims with attribution that may need to be handled as less reliable than the source's baseline, but this is generally correct.
User generated sources	Sources published by the author	A self-published blog Twitter YouTube Companies own website Facebook	Y, I would explicitly include in the definition sources that are published on crowdsourced websites, although you've obviously given examples of such sources already.
Non Independent source	Sources published by people closely related to the subject	A section in a newspaper about a company where the newspaper is sponsored by the company An autobiography The Skwawkbox News coverage with a statement from a representative of the company Other biased newspapers	Y, the definition is good, but there's some issues with the examples. Bias is not the same as a lack of independence or unreliability. While the most recent discussion at RSN deemed The Skwawkbox to be unreliable, that is not due to being non-independent (which would need to be assessed with respect to each specific subject) or due to being biased; rather, it was due to their track record of providing inaccurate reporting.

2.

Type	Definition	Examples (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary)	Comment by Trainer
Primary	Accounts from people directly involved in an event/sources which do not comment on content in-depth	(example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results Self-published eyewitness accounts of a tornado report Issac Newton talking about his own discovery The Government of the United Kingdom talking about their new financial support scheme A first-person account of a person taking a COVID-19 vaccine Lego talking about their new set Issac Newton talking about his first law A tweet from Boris Johnson A Guardian article talking about their new publication guidelines Greyden Press talking about their own book Boris Johnson talking about his meeting with the EU Croydon Police talking about the shooting of Sergeant Matiu Ratana Pen Hadow talking about his Arctic expedition Henry VII of England talking about Anne Boleyn William Shakespeare talking about The Tempest	Y
Secondary	An authors own thinking based on primary sources	(example) newspaper A book reviewer of To kill a mocking bird A critics review of Titanic (film) A survivor of the Titanic autobiography used for referencing the Titanic but not the survivor themselves BBC News A professors review of a students research paper on their theory	Y; the definition and 2 and 3 are correct. However, 4 is an example of a primary source, 5 includes both primary and secondary coverage (e.g. a BBC programme reporting on a speech by the PM is secondary; raw footage broadcast on the platform of the PM giving a speech is primary). 6 is a bit of an odd example, as a professor's review of their students' work is unlikely to be published. In theory, it could be considered secondary but not wholly independent.
Tertiary	A compilation of primary and secondary sources	(example) encyclopedias Online libraries IMDB Timelines Travel guides Almanacs	Y, a travel guide could conceivably be a secondary source, but otherwise these are correct

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	A first-person account of WW1	A news article on WW1	A textbook on WW1	Y
Science	A science paper by Issac Newton	A specialist reviewing Isaac Newton’s work	An article about Issac Newton	Y, although the third one could also be a secondary source
Athletes	An autobiography of athlete	A trainer examine the athletes performance	A timeline of the athletes life and career	Y

---

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.

4

Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania (1937)

Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 – April 9, 1959) was an American architect, interior designer, writer, and educator. Wright believed in designing structures that were in harmony with humanity and its environment, a philosophy he called organic architecture. His creative period spanned more than 70 years. He works includes The Guggenheim, swirling, snail-shaped museum in the middle of Manhattan. Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture." 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.

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/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://franklloydwright.org/work/	Published by his own foundation	His own foundation will have accurate information	Discusses his works in detail	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302053743/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm	Independent magazine	Reliable magazine	Coverage in detail	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	Seems to be an independent biography	Seems to be reliable	Covers a lot of detail	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

Y

---

5

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

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

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8902348/	Dead page	Dead page but generally unreliable	Dead page	✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales	Doesn’t mention him	Doesn’t mention him but generally reliable	Doesn’t mention him	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125	Self-published (Note: These are assumptions, I can’t see the source since I don’t have an account)	Self-published	Self-published	✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/	No connection to the subject	I doubt that they have strict publication guidelines	Trivial coverage	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

Y

6

Sonny Bill Williams 2010

Sonny William Williams (born 3 August 1985), who is a Muslim, is a New Zealand All blacks rugby union footballer, Williams was a Marist Saints junior when he was spotted playing in Auckland by Bulldogs talent scout John Ackland. 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.

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	Not related to the subject	The dailymail is not always reliable	A trivial mention of a child, nothing relating to his career	✘ No
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108	Published by his team, it seems	Seems to be	Not too much detail	✘ No
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308	Independent	Seems reliable	Trivial coverage	✘ No
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html	Independent	Seems reliable	Quite in-depth coverage	✔ 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

Y

---

7

David Petraeus

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

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

In 2003, Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the fall of Baghdad

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/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch	Video (primary source)	Seems reliable	Just a video, not that much detail	✘ No
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893	Independent	Seems reliable	In-depth coverage	✔ Yes
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012	Independent	Information is provided by users and not actually verified	Not a lot of information	✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005	Independent	Seems reliable	A lot of detail	✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html	An interview	Seems reliable	A very brief mention of the airborne division	✘ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html	Independent	Seems reliable	A lot of detail	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

Y

Questions

Question 8

Now that we've covered sources, can you apply your knowledge of GNG and SNGs? For each of the above subjects assessed in the previous section, please identify whether they meet notability guidelines (and how/why), based solely on the sources included on this page (i.e. don't go looking for more sources)

1. Frank Lloyd Wright - Y Multiple sources counting towards WP:GNG
2. Jordan Lennon - N No sources meeting WP:GNG. Also doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music)
3. Sonny Bill Williams - Y Meets WP:NRU as a High Performance Union player for New Zealand
4. David Petraeus - Y Multiple sources counting towards WP:GNG

Y

Question 9

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

To not put inaccurate or false information into the encyclopedia so people can trust Wikipedia

Is verifiable information necessarily true? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No as information can become out-of-date/even reliable sources can give wrong information sometimes. Eyebeller 20:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Y

Question 10

Could we cite Wikipedia as a source? and why?

No, as Wikipedia is a self-published source. However, you could use the same source from another Wikipedia article

Y, it's also crowd-sourced, and even if those concerns weren't germane, citing ourselves could lead to circular reasoning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Question 11

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

Legislation from the UK Government. It is reliable as Government sources are reliable, however, when talking about the Government it is not independent

The reliability of sources depends on context, and governments are no exception. Could you give an example of a context where the British government would be reliable, and an example of where it wouldn't? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable for giving information about a new grant it has launched. It wouldn't be reliable when talking about the UK's handling of COVID-19 as it is biased. Eyebeller 20:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Y

Question 12

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

The dailymail - hasn't got strict publishing procedures

Y, a valid example, but the issue with the DM isn't that it doesn't have publishing procedures (it does), but rather that it has a track record of publishing knowingly false information and does not have a track record of issuing corrections. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Question 13

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

You can look at WP:RSPSRC or if the source isn't there try to have a look around the site and see if the content is user-generated, see the size of the company producing the source etc.

Assuming you've checked W:RSP and WP:NPPSG, please describe the steps you would take to determine the reliability of a web publication, e.g. [1]. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not in either links but I would say it is reliable as it seems like a well-known news source from Russia. Eyebeller 20:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

N Assuming that you can't find a holistic evaluation of a source in RS (usually the case) and there isn't an existing consensus on Wikipedia, there's two key things that you should be looking at when assessing a news source's reliability: whether it discloses editorial information, and the extent to which it is used by others. In this case, while MT does not appear to consistently include bylines on its articles, it does list an About Us page that includes names of editorial staff, and an internet search for "according to the Moscow Times" turns up a fair amount of coverage in English-language RS. Based on this evidence, we can assume that it's generally reliable and usable for non-extraordinary claims. Your conclusion was correct, but your methodology was a bit lacking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's do some more source identification practice. Without consulting any existing Wikipedia consensuses, such as those listed at WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG or WP:RSN, assess whether the following sources are reliable. You may refer to Wikipedia articles for the publications if they exist. Be specific as to how and why you came to your conclusions. Feel free to offer topic-scoped assessments such as "likely reliable for claims related to pop culture" or "reliable for non-political subject matter". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

15 USA Today - widely distributed, covers a variety of topics. I can't access the about us page due to me being in the EU. Y

Y, one of the US's papers of record

16 The Hindu - most respected paper in India Y

How did you arrive at this conclusion? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Quote from The Hindu. Eyebeller 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Y

17 Anadolu Agency - established news source, quality assurance standards in place Y

N, this is a Turkish government press outlet, a country that has significant press freedom issues. While it is reliable for the Turkish government's official perspective on issues, it should not be considered generally reliable, and should be avoided in favor of other sources for political coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

18 Popular Mechanics - popular magazine, trusted for science & technology Y

Y

19 South China Morning Post - as the most credible paid newspaper in Hong Kong Y

How did you arrive at this conclusion? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Quote from South China Morning Post. Eyebeller 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Y

20 Seventeen - seems like a magazine for young people, quite a lot of fashion stuff, not specialising in news. I wouldn't count that as reliable, not as much circulation N

N, while I wouldn't use Seventeen for controversial topics or news reporting, they are perfectly usable for claims related to teen culture. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

21 Egypt Today - their about us page seems convincing. Trusted for breaking news, not for in-depth analysis Y

N, their About Us, which doesn't list a masthead, is not particularly convincing. That having been said, there's some amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS, so I would agree that it is probably reliable.

22 Xconomy - very convincing about us page. Trusted for economic news Y

N, no USEBYOTHERS outside of PR press mills. Trade publications are chock full of paid advertisements, and are generally not reliable for use on Wikipedia

23 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - I can't change the language to English and can't translate the name.

You can still look up this source online, try again. While non-English sources are obviously more difficult to evaluate (and sometimes genuinely are impossible, for obscure publications written in languages not well-supported by Google Translate), you are expected to translate non-English web pages in order to research them. There are various browser plugins available that will make this easier (I like Popup View for Google™ Translate on Firefox). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems politically biased. N Eyebeller 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

N , while Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung definitely has its biases, it's one of the most highly regarded German papers. Moreover, as I've said before, bias alone is not a basis for unreliability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

24 Blesk - From the relevant Wikipedia article, seems quite biased to me. Trusted for news but not for politics Y

Y, it's a tabloid publication with no USEBYOTHERS as far as I can see, so I wouldn't use it for news either. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

25 La Jornada - Again, can't read it but seems to be neutral and well circulated. Y

Per 23, try again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be used by others? Y Eyebeller 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Y

26 The Forward - Seems very Jewish based, can be biased N

N, focusing on reporting related to a minority community is not basis for unreliability. There's plenty of USEBYOTHERS, so it can be considered reliable, although it may not be DUE for topics unrelated to Jewish culture. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

27 The Daily Californian - About us page, "strives for accuracy and fairness". Well-established Y

N, student publications are generally not considered reliable sources except for when reporting about student life topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You had a bit of trouble with this last segment. Let's move on for now, and we can revisit this later. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Content Policy

Article titles

Please read WP:TITLE and answer the questions below

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

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

References

Answer: Change to Hannibal because that's what the sources use?

Y

---

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.

References

Answer: Keep the name per WP:COMMONNAME

Y

---

Biographies of living persons

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.

On 15 August 2019, TMZ Sports published a video that appeared to show McGregor punching a man at The Marble Arch Pub in Dublin. 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. McGregor was charged with assault and first appeared in court on 11 October 2019.

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

Answer: The last paragraph isn't sourced, remove per WP:BLPSOURCE

Y

---

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

Diana Nyad (née Sneed; born August 22, 1949) is an American author, journalist, motivational speaker, and long-distance swimmer who lives in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. and could be contacted at +0-202-456-6213. 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).

References

Answer: Remove personal information per WP:BLPPRIVACY. The address is of The Whitehouse as well.

Y

---

Images copyright

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, per this page: "In general, DoD VI that are works of authorship prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are not eligible for copyright protection in the United States."

Y

Answer - link/guideline:

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain

Y

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

Answer- Explanation:

Yes, in the Public Domain.

Y

Answer - link/guideline:

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain

Y

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

Answer- Explanation:

Yes - at Commons, it says that it is in the public domain.

Y

Answer - link/guideline:

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain

Y

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

Answer- Explanation:

No, non-free image.

Y

Answer - link/guideline:

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses

Y

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?

Images claimed as own work when they are copied from somewhere online?

N, while you should be checking for this and tagging the images for deletion, these aren't evidence of COI, but rather just copyright violations. What is evidence of COI are professional headshots claimed as own work (e.g. File:Adam Conover photograph.jpg) . They're actually more likely to be a COI issue if they're not taken from somewhere online, because the possession of the image implies direct contact with the article's subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Neutral point of view

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. Answer:

She is a boxer who turned Pro at the age of 19 after winning one fight on December 14, 2013 where she won against her opponent in 20 seconds. Her next fight was in February 2014 after XXX promotion.

Y, mostly good, but saying someone fought under XXX promotion is grammatically correct for boxing. I also would write pro instead of Pro, and the detail that she won in 20 seconds probably isn't DUE for inclusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 9 January 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:

He is an acclaimed Bulgarian actor. 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.

N, I would not include tender, innocent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 9 January 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:

To not make an article biased we represent all major views.

Y

---

Extra neutrality practice

For the following paragraphs, identify if they need any edits for neutrality, and if so, draft a corrected version of the paragraph.

1. Goessling is member of the Cancer Genetics Program and the Gastrointestinal Malignancies Program, both at the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. He is also advisory dean of the Irving M. London Society for HST students. He has been hailed for his accessbility, compassion and knowledge and his remarkable patient care, even while he has had to fight against his own aggressive malignancy.

References

Goessling is member of the Cancer Genetics Program and the Gastrointestinal Malignancies Program, both at the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center.[1] He is also advisory dean of the Irving M. London Society for HST students.[2]

Y In hindsight, this one is unfair, as the Süddeutsche Zeitung piece didn't used to be paywalled and the third link appears to have been broken since I wrote this question a few months ago. However, there is sufficient support in those sources to justify the measured praise for Goessling included in the text, no neutrality edits are needed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Nathaniel Coleman (born January 1, 1997) is an American sport climber. He became the first American male climber to qualify to compete in the Olympic Games after advancing to the final at IFSC Combined Qualifier Toulouse 2019 in November–December, 2019. Coleman won three straight USA Climbing Bouldering Open National Championships, from 2016 to 2018, and finished 2nd in the 2019 competition. He also finished second in the 2019 Combined Invitational.

Nathaniel Coleman (born January 1, 1997) is an American sport climber. He qualified to compete in the Olympic Games after advancing to the final at IFSC Combined Qualifier Toulouse 2019 in November–December, 2019.[1]

N, this paragraph does not need any neutrality edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

3. The Disque Foundation is a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit created by Dr. Karl "Fritz" Disque in 2012 in response to a medical mission trip to Hati during the 2010 earthquake. The goal of the Disque Foundation is to further advance the quality of education and health care to under served communities both domestic and abroad. Through mission work and free online courses, the Disque Foundation has empowered over 1,000,000 people around the world with life saving skills.

The Disque Foundation is a non-profit organisation[1] created by Dr. Karl "Fritz" Disque in 2012 in response to a medical mission trip to Hati during the 2010 earthquake[2]. The goal of the Disque Foundation is to further advance the quality of education and health care to under served communities both domestic and abroad. Through mission work and free online courses[3], the Disque Foundation has helped over 1,000,000 people[4] around the world with their specialist skills.

N, while you were right to cut the 501(c)(3) language, the last two sentences still read like PR copy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

4. Patrick John Harrington, QC is a Welsh criminal law barrister and Queen's Counsel. He has acted in more than 250 homicide trials, and has been noted for work on some of "the largest and most complex fraud cases in the UK". He has been referred to as one of Wales' "most prominent" lawyers.

Patrick John Harrington, QC is a Welsh criminal law barrister and Queen's Counsel.[1] He has acted in more than 250 homicide trials.[1]

N, the claim of Harrington being one of Wales' most prominent lawyers and working on the largest and most complex fraud cases in the UK are both pulled directly from BBC, and are thus fine to include as the BBC is a high quality RS for this subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

5. Danielle and Jennifer grew up Harleysville, Pennsylvania and started out in the entertainment industry at very young ages. Danielle was the first to get the acting bug and Jennifer was soon to follow. Danielle started acting at the age of 5 and landed her first commercial at the age of 6. Danielle's talent was soon recognized and she secured a role on Broadway in Les Miserables at the age of just 7 years old. Danielle is also a member of The Broadway Kids and can be heard on their latest album, "Hey Mr. DJ!". Jennifer was of course wasn't far behind and landed starring roles in Law & Order:SVU, Law & Order: CI and All My Children. Both sisters have a long list of voice-over credentials including voice-over characters in Blue's Clues, and jingles for (Hess Truck(Spanish), Curad, Charmin, Pepsi). They have been seen in TV commercials as well such as Wendy's, Ethan Allen, ASPCA, AT&T, and Monster.com. Danielle has performed in the 2003 Off-Broadway musical "The Alchemists". Danielle and Jennifer shared the stage in the Off-Broadway shows "A" for Adultery and The House of Bernarda Alba.

Jennifer was of course wasn't far behind and landed starring roles in Law & Order:SVU, Law & Order: CI and All My Children.[6] Both sisters have a long list of voice-over credentials including voice-over characters in Blue's Clues, and jingles for (Hess Truck(Spanish), Curad, Charmin, Pepsi). They have been seen in TV commercials as well such as Wendy's, Ethan Allen, ASPCA, AT&T, and Monster.com. Danielle has performed in the 2003 Off-Broadway musical "The Alchemists".[7]

(All other links are broken so information can't be verified)

N several issues here. It's not clear why you cut the first sentence entirely, and meanwhile you kept non-neutral language not justified by the sources, such as starring roles in Law & Order... and long list of voice-over credentials. Remember that the goal of this exercise is to trim POV text that isn't justified by the provided sources; claims that are not immediately verifiable, but which are neutrally phrased and non-extraordinary should have been left in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

It looks like you're having some trouble identifying what is and isn't appropriate to include in an article from a neutrality perspective. Please review your incorrect answers, and then for each of the following topics, describe what sort of content is appropriate with strong sources, what sort of content is appropriate with non-independent or otherwise weak sources, and what sort of content is never appropriate regardless of sourcing.

Sorry, I'm doing extremely bad at this school. I don't get the task. Can you give an example? Eyebeller 20:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and filled out the first one as an example _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Example

Scientists and doctors

• With strong sources (e.g. major news RS like CNN or BBC, academic papers): praise, statements of extraordinary accomplishments (e.g. Dr. McScience is noted for her significant contributions to molecular biology, Dr. Chemistry was the first woman to win the prestigious MacGuffin Award for Physics)
• Appropriate with weak sources: biographical facts, non-extraordinary accomplishments (e.g. Dr. Smith received a PhD in Physics from Yale, Dr. Nussbaum was the head of the Bellwhether Institute from 2010–2015)
• Not appropriate with weak sources: extraordinary accomplishments (e.g. Dr. Quack is noted as the best doctor in the tristate area, Dr. Shrink is noted for his significant contributions to psychiatry), puffery (e.g. Dr. Mister has treated more than 300 patients with late-stage pancreatitis)
• Never appropriate: extremely florid descriptions of praise or accomplishments, e.g. Dr. McScience is a titan of his field, an unparalleled Adonis of cardiology

Athletes

• With strong sources (e.g. major news RS like CNN or BBC, academic papers): praise, statements of extraordinary accomplishments (e.g. ... is regarded as the most successful 100m runner from ...)
• Appropriate with weak sources: biographical facts, ranking in competitions/tournaments (e.g. ... came 1st at this event)

Y, depends on the event. If the event is itself notable, then it's generally WP:DUE for inclusion. If it isn't, we should defer to strong sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not appropriate with weak sources: extraordinary accomplishments (e.g. ... is regarded as the most successful 100m runner
• Never appropriate: definitive praise ... is the best 100m runner of all time)

  Y, for an example of the most definitive praise that we're allowed to give an athlete, see Michael Jordan. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Companies and organizations

• With strong sources (e.g. major news RS like CNN or BBC, academic papers): praise, statements of extraordinary accomplishments (e.g. ... is regarded as the most ethical company in ...)

  Y

• Appropriate with weak sources: sales figures, simple facts (e.g. ... turned over $1,000,000,000 last year making it one of the most successful lifestyle brands today by turnover)

  N, because performance figures can be misleadingly represented (e.g. posting massive revenue while still having net loss in profit), we shouldn't be including these kinds of performance figures unless they're reported in top-tier sources. Appropriate information to cite with weak sources would be things like what year or where a company was founded, or other information that is both non-controversial without the possibility of being self-serving. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not appropriate with weak sources: extraordinary accomplishments (e.g. ... is regarded as the most ethical company in ...

  Y, not wrong, but missing info per my previous comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Never appropriate: definitive praise ... is the most ethical company of all time)

  N, while I don't think there's any risk of a reliable source decisively naming a company "the most ethical of all time", it is possible for a company to be the most successful or largest. Other inappropriate content would include ad copy, even if the claims are supported by reliable sources (e.g. for just $20 a month, Insurance Co. can cover customer's homes and automobiles) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Lawyers

• With strong sources (e.g. major news RS like CNN or BBC, academic papers): praise, statements of extraordinary accomplishments (e.g. ... has worked on some of the most difficult cases)

  Y

• Appropriate with weak sources: simple facts (e.g. ... completed a successful lawsuit against ... yesterday - the first person in history to do so)

  N, the relevance of a given lawsuit to the biography or a "first" is not a given, we need independent sources to assess whether it's WP:DUE. Information in this category would be things like how long they worked at a law firm, assuming that the relevance of said position was already established by another source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not appropriate with weak sources: extraordinary accomplishments (e.g. ... has worked on some of the most difficult cases

  Y _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Never appropriate: definitive praise ...is the best lawyer of all time)

  Y, in addition to this, ads for their services would also always be inappropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Actors and entertainers

• With strong sources (e.g. major news RS like CNN or BBC, academic papers): praise, statements of extraordinary accomplishments (e.g. ... has been projected to be one of the best actors of all time, even though ... is only 20)

  Y, we should only be including projections if they are included in RS coverage to an extensive degree that is incredibly rare, per WP:CRYSTAL. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Appropriate with weak sources: simple facts, awards (e.g. ... won an oscar for their role in ... making them the youngest person to win an oscar)

  Y, it depends on the award. A lot of minor film festivals have impressive sounding awards that do not mean very much. While obviously we can take the websites for the Oscars or the Golden Globe at their word, this is not an appropriate practice for awards in general. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not appropriate with weak sources: extraordinary accomplishments (e.g.

  Y, in addition, puffery that emphasizes impressive details (e.g. at the young age of 4 where at age 4 or when they were 4 would do). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Never appropriate: definitive praise ...is the best actor of all time)

  N, an actor could verifiably the most prolific, the first, or the most financially successful. Another category that is never appropriate to include is promotional copy (e.g. He dazzled in his performance as the Javert, Her singing enraptured audiences). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In hindsight, this practice only included positive examples of neutrality issues. Articles with negative neutrality issues are relatively rare in new page patrol, and tend to be very egregious and obvious when they occur. Tendentious POV pushing around political topics tends to take the form of original research, covered in the next section, rather than through undue assessments of quality.

We should practice neutrality more later. I'm adding more questions below, but I do want to suggest first that you should take these sections a bit slower. If you're not sure what the answer to a question is, try looking up articles that contain relevant content to get a sense of how things are handled. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No original research

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:

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia where people look for factual and proven information about a topic, therefore there is no original research as original research isn’t reliable. For something to be reliable, reliable published sources must exist.

Could you elaborate on why original research is not reliable? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It is someone’s own opinion/unproven facts. Eyebeller 18:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Y

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

When that opinion is backed up by a reliable secondary source. Such as for an actor, it is thought that they will win an Oscar for this movie.

I think you misunderstood this question. The question is asking for you to give an example of when an original opinion would be appropriate, if ever. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Never, opinions always need to be secondary. Eyebeller 18:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

N, WP:OR lists several cases in which original content can be added: original images, original translations, and routine calculations can all be added by editors. Additionally, per MOS:PLOT, plot summaries of fictional works can be added without citation so long as they are summaries and not analysis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

YouTube isn’t a reliable source so nothing.

Treat the video as a primary source. Presupposing that the video's content is all DUE for inclusion, how would we present the claims. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Shady Alsuleiman says that the following conditions for clothing must be met for a man and woman: the clothing must be baggy, non see-through and it must be non-colourful attractive. Eyebeller 18:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Y, although "according to Shady Alsuleiman" is probably more tonally appropriate than "Shady Alsuleiman says" _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional OR practice

For each of the following, state whether the prompt is an example of original research, as well as your reasoning

1. An editor writes a new article about an album. The entirety of the "Reception" section is just "According to Pitchfork" followed by a direct quote from a review in Pitchfork.

No original research.

Y, although if the quote is long enough there may be copyvio issues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Source A in an article about Green Wugs states that 70% of green wugs have a checkerboard pattern in their feathers. Source B states that green wugs with checkerboard patterns have a high incidence of sickle cell anemia. An editor writes in the article 70% of green wugs have checkerboard patterns in their feathers and sickle cell anemia and cites both sources

Original research as the information obtained isn't mathematically correct.

Y

3. Source A in an article about Green Wugs states that 70% of green wugs have a checkerboard pattern in their feathers. Source B states that all green wugs with checkerboard patterns have sickle cell anemia. An editor writes in the article 70% of green wugs have checkerboard patterns in their feathers and sickle cell anemia and cites both sources

Original research as the editor drew a conclusion not explicitly supported by the sources.

Y

4. In an article about Human rights in South Asia by country, almost all of the sources specifically analyze one country at a time. An editor writes a lead that summarizes the information in the article, including phrases such as roughly half of the countries in South Asia allow for the use of the death penalty and Most countries in South Asia developed their modern legal codes based off of British colonial law.

Not original research since this is a summary.

Y

5. In a review for a song, the editor includes an analysis of the song's lyrics and their meanings that are cited to Genius (website)

Original research since there is an analysis of sources.

Y, if the analysis is mentioned at Genius then it's just citing an unreliable source, rather than OR. Either way it's not appropriate content to include.

6. In an article titled International reactions to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, an editor creates a map based on the information in the article where countries are colored in based on their public stances on the issue. These stances are individually supported by citations in the article's text, but no map is cited.

Fine since it's just a compilation of sources, no analysis.

Y

7. In an article about a company, Source A says that in 2018, the company made $100k in revenue selling Product X. Source B says that in 2018, the company made $200k selling Product Y. An editor writes in the article In 2018, the company made $300k in revenue from selling products X and Y.

Original research since the $200k isn't specified as 'revenue'. It could be net profit or gross profit.

Y

8. In an article about the Climate of South America, a source provides measurements in Celsius. An editor converts the measurements to Fahrenheit in the article.

No original research since it is a simple conversion to harmonize the content in a page.

Y

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion

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.
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.

General criteria

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	Page only contains content that you can't understand	sdfffff dsfhiowahoieiof fiosdfiosdhifhiod sdfsdf	Y, good example, but the definition as written here would include content in languages that you don't understand, to which G1 does not apply.
2	G2	Test pages not in the sandbox/user space	Hello, my name is ...	Y
3	G3	Pages that are hoaxes and page-move vandalism	Donald Trump is fake	Y
4	G4	Pages deleted through a deletion discussion that is substantially identical to the deleted version	Recreating an article that is substantially identical to the version deleted through AfD	Y
5	G5	Pages created by banned/blocked users	Creating an article about an animal when I am topic banned from that area	Y, the example is correct, but it's important to note that G5 is only applicable if the article creation was explicitly in violation of the ban or block; editors who make contributions and are later banned or blocked do not have their contributions G5'ed en masse.
6	G6	Housekeeping/uncontroversial maintenance	A user creating a main space article by accident	Y, a more typical example of this would be deleting a redirect to make way for an uncontroversial page move
7	G7	Author requesting deletion of a page they created	Requesting deletion of a page I created in my user space	Y, correct, but not an example you would encounter while patrolling new pages, and G7 has an additional requirement (no significant contributions from other editors) when applied to pages outside of User space
8	G8	Pages that are primarily based on a non-existent page	Talk pages with no article	Y
9	G9	Where the WMF decides to delete a page	N/A	Y
10	G10	Attack pages	Donald Trump is [insert offensive text here]	Y
11	G11	Pages that advertise rather than inform	Advertising Apple on a page	Y, a page needs to be exclusively advertorial in order for G11 to apply. For cases where promotional text is included alongside usable content, speedy deletion does not apply.
12	G12	Copyright violations where there is no non-copyright content	N/A	Y, also includes cases where the remaining non-copyrighted content does not stand on its own (e.g. only sentence fragments left)
13	G13	Abandoned drafts not edit in 6 months	Creating a draft and not editing it for more than 6 months	Y
14	G14	Un-needed disambiguation pages	A disambiguation page that end in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only to one page	Y

Article and redirect criteria

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	Article with no context where you can't find further information	He drives a BMW and lives in India	Y, although note that the article title alone may potentially provide enough context
2	A2	Non-English articles that exist on another Wikimedia project	A non-English article that exists in another language Wikipedia	Y
3	A3	A page with no content other than the default/article wizard content	An article with only categories	Y
5	A5	A page consisting of content that has already been transwikied	An article consisting of a dictionary definition of ... that has already been moved to Wiktionary	Y
7	A7	An article about: people, animals, organizations, web content, events with no indication of importance	A person creates an autobiography when they have no coverage in any sources at all	N, as if the article contains credible claims of significance it would not meet A7, even if it's an autobiography. Its lack of sources would however qualify it for BLPPROD
9	A9	An article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met)	An article about the song ... by x and y when x and y have no articles and it is not clear why the song is significant	Y
10	A10	A duplicate article where further detail is not given and where the title is not a valid redirect	An article with the title Doonald Trump with no additional content than Donald Trump	Y
11	A11	An article about a topic that the author invented/no notability indications at all	Someone creating an article about their own science law with no sources	Y
12	R2	Redirects from the main space to any other space excluding: Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal:	A redirect from ... to Draft:...	Y
13	R3	Recently created redirects with uncommon typos	A Doonald Trump redirect to Donald Trump	N, this typo isn't implausible enough to qualify for R3 (although it's still not a good redirect). R3 would cover typos such as Dzxcvonald Trump or Donald Trump,

Scenarios

Scenario 1

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

John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.

G10.

Y

Scenario 2

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

'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.

G11.

Y

Scenario 3

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

'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 500 subscribers on YouTube.

A7.

Y

Scenario 4

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

Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.

Redirect to The Nice.

Y

Scenario 5

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

Under the law of Oregon which was in force in Alaska when the seizure and levy of the plaintiff's goods were made by the defendant as marshal of Alaska under a writ of attachment, that officer could not, by virtue of his writ, lawfully take the property from the possession of a third person, in whose possession he found it.

G12.

N, US case law documents are public domain. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 6

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

A2 if it's on another Wikimedia project, else tag with Template:Not English.

Y

Scenario 7

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

R3.

Y

Scenario 8

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

Nothing.

Y

Scenario 9

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

Nothing.

N, extraneous punctuation (in this case a comma) is reason enough for R3

Scenario 10

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

R3.

N, as this is a transliteration of New Jersey with a New Jersey accent. Such redirects should be nominated for RfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 11

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

Nothing.

N, this should be nominated for RfD, as it is more likely to be a misspelling of Calgary than Calvary _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Live CSD practice

Please read WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD 11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Please provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i:

Y

Answer ii:

Y

Answer iii:

Y

Answer iv:

Y

Answer v:

Y

Copyright violations

Please read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and answer the questions below.

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

Answer:

G12 when a very large/all the content of a page is a copyright violation, revdel when only part of the text is but not the whole page.

Y, the part about G12 is correct, but REVDEL is also limited to scenarios where other editors have not added significant non-infringing content whose contribution history would be removed by the REVDEL action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

4. What constitutes copyright infringement/violation.

Answer:

Material copied from elsewhere that is not released under a suitable license.

Y

5. 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.

Answer i:

Quotations.

Y

Answer ii:

Material released in the public domain.

Y

Answer iii:

No other way to communicate the information.

Y

6. Why do copyright violations need to be removed from Wikipedia and who determines when a violation is lawfully taking place?

Answer:

Copyright violations are a legal matter and editors/Administrators are responsible for removing them.

Y

7. 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.

Answer I:

Y

Answer ii:

Y

Answer iii:

Y

Answer iv:

N, most of the flagged content are job titles that couldn't be phrased any other way. There's one or two sentences that seem to be copied from a source that shouldn't have been, but the article would still be coherent without them so G12 is not appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer v:

Draft:Yoon-ho

Y, while there was some copyvio content in the page, it works fine as a {{given name}} page even without that content, so I went ahead and published it after removing and revdel'ing the offending content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest and paid editors

Please read WP:NPPCOI, WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question

11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?

Answer:

We can spot a COI/paid editor by analysing the topics they write about and how they write about them. For example, they may only write about products by X in a very promotional tone, that could I or they have a COI or are paid. We can also look at their username which could mention a companies name.

Y, other clues include their username, and claiming high quality/close range images of the subject as own work. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

12. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?

Answer:

If the article still meets policy and guidelines (i.e. isn't biased or promotional) curate it and tag it with the COI template. Else, you can move it to the draft space if the content is worth presenting.

Y

13. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor?

Answer:

They must follow the instructions to disclose this. You can tell them this on their talk page. Then, same answer as above.

Y

Additional COI practice

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.

Possible - warn them of COI on their talk but since notability guidelines are met leave the article.

Y, you should also tag the article in this situation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 12 January 2021 (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.

Possible - seems just a one-off occurrence considering they have several hundred of edits prior to this. Warn them about COI on their talk.

Y, it may be better to phrase the warning as primarily being an NPOV concern. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 12 January 2021 (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.

Unlikely - you can't have COI with a tree. Possibly lives in Georgia and just wants to update information about it.

Y

4 An editor with the username "ApuOcalanPKKForever" creates a biography about a Turkish dissident. The article is not neutrally written.

Not sure if this is it but Abdullah Öcalan is one of the leaders of the PKK so tag and warn about COI.

Y, this is more likely an editor with POV issues than an editor with an actual COI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 12 January 2021 (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

More likely to be a fan rather than paid. Tag with POV and warn the editor.

Y

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.

Could be paid/someone in her team. Tag with COI and ask to disclose their payment if they are paid.

Y

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

Leave it and move on if neutrally written. It’s very likely that they’ve just got an interest in those academics and have knowledge about them. Since they have been writing these articles over a long time an unlikely COI as the articles were neutrally written.

N, this is still likely COI, as it is likely that this individual is a colleague of those academics (and possibly is one of them). While UPE operatives tend to do drive-by editing, submitting articles from new accounts, editors who are contributing on the basis of a personal COI often do so over long periods of time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 12 January 2021 (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.

Possible COI. I think you mentioned this as a sign of COI before (headshots claimed as own work). Tag and warn about COI.

Y

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.

Editors username isn’t Russian so a bit weird. Warn about paid editing.

Y, good job picking up on that. Paid editors often have user names that look like real names. An odd pairing of user name and editing interests, particularly in a high-COI field such as biographies of businesspeople, should be a red flag for you as a page reviewer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 12 January 2021 (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

Possible block evasion as the editor moving the draft is new to Wikipedia and it is suspicious that they would rush to that specific draft. Check the article for references, take action based on that and report to ANI/SPI.

Y

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.

Consult with the reviewer, they probably made a mistake.

Y

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.

Look at the editor who moved it and the page and tag with COI/paid as appropriate.

Y, the original editor is more likely someone who just wasn't able to work well with others, rather than someone with an ulterior motive. Consulting with the editor that moved it out of draftspace and then proceeding with a normal article review would probably be the best course of action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Filtering - Deletion policy & other alternatives

In assignment 4, we look at articles which meetWP:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) whereby the the articles are deleted within a few hours to 24 hours from the time of the 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:

When the deletion would be uncontroversial and does not need discussion. It is easier than AfD.

Y, and when CSD criteria don't apply. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer:

Work through the steps at WP:PRODNOM.

And these are, in your own words... _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Check alternatives to deletion in WP:BEFORE, review the history for recent vandalism, confirm that: it has not previously been proposed for deletion through BLPPROD/CSD, it has not previously been undeleted. and it is not, nor has ever been, discussed at AfD. Eyebeller 22:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Y

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 article must be a BLP.

Alternatives:

1) Another deletion method, e.g. AfD where the deletion can be properly discussed 2) Use normal PROD, if it is not a BLP 3) Tag the page appropriately for fixing

N, BLPPROD is exclusively for BLPs that have no sources at all. It is not just "PROD but for BLPs". An important alternative to nominating an article for BLPPROD is just providing a source yourself, which is often doable for notable subjects and subjects covered on other language Wikipedia projects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer:

If we can't use PROD or CSD, we have done WP:BEFORE and it is an article.

Please describe BEFORE steps in your own words

See if you can improve the page. i.e. search for sources, clean up any issues e.g. vandalism. Tag the article for problems so other editors can fix it. Consider merging the content into another article or making the page a redirect. Also consider moving the article to the Draft space for improvement or moving it to another wiki. 22:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Y, although fixing issues such as POV problems is unnecessary if your search for sources comes up short, especially if such edits would primarily involve removing content, as other editors may incorrectly perceive your actions as trying to sabotage the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer:

PROD and BLPPROD - 7 days or less if objected AFD - at least 7 days

Y

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:

Use AfD.

Y, CSD or PROD may still apply at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer:

The content is useful but not enough information for a stand-alone article.

Y

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

Answer:

Alternative names, plurals, closely related words, more specific forms of names, abbreviations, alternative spellings, punctuation issues, likely misspellings, shortcuts, redirects to disambiguation pages that do not contain "(disambiguation)" in the title

Y, while this is a good list of reasons to redirect, a lot of these cases don't really apply to converting a submited article to a redirect. In particular, subtopics that are not independently notable of an existing article, and redirects from creative works to their notable creators or group members to their notable groups are missing from you list. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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:

Bing, Google Books, Google Translate when you can't read.

Y You should also check Google Scholar and Google News, as well as other language Wikipedia articles if they exist. For subjects where coverage in Russian is likely (i.e. most Eastern European and Central Asian topics), searching Yandex as well is worthwhile. If a foreign language name for the topic is available, you should duplicate your searches in both English and with a copy-paste of that name. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer:

When an article has the potential to be a good article, it just needs more work and is not ready for the main space yet.

Could you clarify what would make an article not be ready for mainspace in this context? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If the subject is notable after searching for sources but there are very little sources in the article that establish notability. Eyebeller 23:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

N, if you've found sources that establish notability, there's no reason to punish the article. Articles should only be moved to draft space if the topic shows promise but has significant neutrality or BLP issues such that it would be potentially harmful to accept into mainspace, or if the primary contributing editor has a clear COI. Alternatively, if a subject is non-notable, but its article contains content that may be repurposed in an article about a related subject, draftifying provides a way to save that content for further use. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

11. 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:

Policies are 'rules' agreed on with consensus. Can be cited as musts in deletion discussions. Guidelines are general suggestions but not set in stone, can be mentioned in specific cases. Essays are written by a user and convert their thoughts. Some essays can also be cited as they are often quite useful.

N, Policies and guidelines are actually both approved through the consensus process, the difference is in their scope. Policies are core rules of the project that virtually never have exceptions, whereas guidelines, despite having been passed through a consensus process as rigorous as policies, are phrased as general rules that may not always be directly applicable. Remember that our main rules governing notability, arguably the core of new page reviewing, are all guidelines. Your definition of essays is correct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

12. 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:

You should use it how you would use the SNG's, a specific guide on what may indicate notability, but does not necessarily 100% mean that the subject will have enough appropriate sources.

Y, such a recommendation would carry less weight than an SNG, but the spirit of this response is essentially corrrect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer:

The article's subject since that's what the sources need to be about.

Y

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

Answer:

You don't need to stick to policies by the letter. If an article tweaks the policies words a bit and it benefits Wikipedia, its fine.

Could you give an example of when you might tweak a policy or guideline during a new page review? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You could be not as strict on npov? Eyebeller 23:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

N, not something we should be less strict on (and given that for a new page review, being strict generally just means placing a template, there isn't much to ignore). A better answer would be being more lenient with notability assessments for articles where the editor has clearly made a good faith attempt to write in a neutral and informative manner and where there is zero possibility of an ulterior motive. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tagging

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

• Please enable Wikipedia:HotCat in your "Wikipedia references" - see How to enable/disable HotCat. The tool lists and proposes existing categories for auto-completion.
• Please install StubSorter user script. The script is for adding/removing stub tags.
• Please install Rater user script. The scripts provides a dialog interface to add, remove, or modify WikiProject banners, including class and importance assessment. Accessible from either the page itself or its talk page. after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
• Please enable User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper gadget for editing, adding, and importing short descriptions.

Tagging in the article

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

1. Why do we place tags on the article?

Answer:

To indicate problems with an article and to add it to list of pages that have issues so they can be fixed.

Y

2. What does "drive by tagging" mean?

Answer:

Adding tags for non-obvious problems without identifying the problem.

Y

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

Answer:

Tagging problems you can easily fix, attempt to solve the problem before tagging, don't tag for non-obvious problems and not explain, don't insert similar tags, don't insert redundant tags, tag only the highest priority issues, don't tag for trivial problems, don't remove the tag if you have a COI.

Y

4. When is it appropriate to remove the tags?

Answer:

Any editor without a COI who sees the tag but does not see the problem in the article can remove the tag provided they check the talk page also.

Y

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Eyebeller, so ironically enough the next section in the NPPSCHOOL rubric is civility and communication. But the Socratic method isn't a terribly effective way of teaching that, so in lieu of that I'm going to give you some advice. Praxidicae's first comments to you were harsh, and I can empathize with feeling defensive in that position. But the fact of the matter is that getting comments like that goes hand in hand with editing in admin-adjacent areas like AfC and NPP (and honestly, antivandalism as well). It's not an every day occurrence, but it does happen from time to time, and your responses have not been appropriate. Responding to an experienced editor's criticism by making an unfounded attack against their edits is not acceptable behavior. In AfDs, if someone asks you to explain your keep vote, you're expected to identify specific sources that you believe satisfy notability guidelines. Just repeating that it meets GNG doesn't cut it. If you can't back up your argument when pressed, you can either admit that you were wrong or quietly check out of the conversation, but doubling down without substantiating your arguments is the kind of behavior that can eventually get you blocked. Making mistakes comes with the territory of reviewing new articles. By definition the task means reviewing contributions about subjects that you know next to nothing about while having to weed out bad faith contributions. You will make mistakes about sources, and about who does or doesn't have a COI, because you're working off of incomplete information. I've been one of the most active new page reviewers for two years now and I still make mistakes. When mistakes happen, if you own up to them people will tend to be pretty forgiving. Take a break from editing for a few days. Whenever Wikipedia becomes stressful, stepping away from the computer is a good idea. You can vent and complain about the other editors to your friends or your cat or do whatever you need to do to get it out of your system so that when you come back to the computer you can respond politely, so that everyone can continue working together and we can get back to maintaining an encyclopedia. And when you come back, edit slower; you'll make fewer mistakes when you think over your decisions carefully. signed, Rosguill talk 02:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC) What annoyed me is that it was another one of those useless "you're doing bad at AfC messages" with no advice on how to get better. Also, the fact that I was about to sleep and that kept me up and I couldn't think quickly. I am much better now though. I'm going to stop doing AfC from now on and I'll only be doing NPP from whenever you trust me to as NPP seems much more enjoyable and relaxing to me when I did it than AfC. Eyebeller 08:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC) I think you're misinterpreting the message. Those questions are an opportunity for you to explain yourself on decisions that they're concerned about. The advice comes after your explanation, assuming that your explanation is unsatisfactory. Moreover, NPP is more difficult and more stressful than AfC: if you're not ready for the latter, you're not ready for the former. I see that you're still doubling down at the Branch Insurance AfD and repeating your own arguments at the Abba Bichi AfD, despite my advice. You need to reevaluate your approach there, or editors are going to start calling to have you topic banned from participating in deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Ok, I'll stop. I never said I wanted to do NPP because it was easier, it is personally more enjoyable and relaxing. Can we carry on with the course as I do still want to participate in NPP in the future? Eyebeller 17:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC) I think for now it's best that we put this on hold. Get some more experience making content edits to the encyclopedia, participating in or even just reading AfD and RSN discussions, and come back in a few months. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Why do we have to put this on hold? I want to start NPP again. Eyebeller 18:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Because I don't think you're ready to handle the scrutiny that comes with NPP yet, and your comments at AfD as of a few hours ago suggest that you still don't understand how to engage there properly. Take a break, and come back after some time has passed and after you can identify what went wrong at both Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abba_Bichi and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Branch_Insurance. Give it a good long break, a month at minimum, put some distance between yourself and these discussions so that you can evaluate them more objectively. signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC) My decision for those two will always be keep. Eyebeller 18:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC) I'm concerned less by your ultimate assessment that they should be kept and more by your argumentation as to why they should be kept. signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC) I don’t want to waste my time explaining stuff to people who won’t listen. Eyebeller 20:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Extra source-assessment practice

Without consulting any existing Wikipedia consensuses, such as those listed at WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG or WP:RSN, assess whether the following sources are reliable. You may refer to Wikipedia articles for the publications if they exist. Be specific as to how and why you came to your conclusions. Feel free to offer topic-scoped assessments such as "likely reliable for claims related to pop culture" or "reliable for non-political subject matter".

The Guardian (Nigeria)

• I would say this is generally a reliable source. The Guardian (Nigeria) states that 'The Guardian was described by The New York Times in 1988 as "Nigeria's most respected newspaper".' This quotation is from some time ago so I wouldn't give it too much weight but is still significant. The About Us page of their website claims that it is an independent newspaper. I find some of the other statements on its About Us page concerning. It seems that it upholds the rights of Nigerian citizens and therefore could be biased in any subjects related to Nigeria especially laws, rights of citizens, the Nigerian economy, and Nigerian international relations. Therefore, I do not think it is a reliable source for such purposes and would be careful about its use. ProofRobust 22:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

N, while your identification of sources of bias is reasonable, this does not preclude reliability, per WP:BIASED. In the absence of clear indications to the contrary, well-established newspapers are considered reliable for statements of fact (WP:NEWSORG). Additionally, you can also do a Google search (I used "guardian" "nigeria" -guardian.ng -theguardian.com to check for WP:USEBYOTHERS, which in this case would reveal significant usage by other major Nigerian news publications, as well as international publications. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

El Pais

• Owned by an established media company. Seems to have good editorial standards. I have read El País#Ideological stance and would be careful about the fact that the paper "has specific columnists and contributors from different social backgrounds contributing to the democratic and pro-European editorial line of the newspaper." I think that this source is generally reliable, but care should be taken as to any political views presented as these could be biased. ProofRobust 22:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Y

Bella Naija

• This website has promotional articles, although these are marked as such. Even then, some of the other articles read as advertisements. Seems to have a lot of self-published content, i.e. articles published by the subjects of that article. These articles are not independent of the subject and their reliability is questionable. Overall, I would not consider this source to be reliable. ProofRobust 22:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Y

Morning Star

• A left-wing newspaper in which people can buy shares. Seems to have editorial guidelines. Looking at some of the articles, they seem to be biased towards left-wing politics. Therefore, I would not say it is a reliable source. ProofRobust 22:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

N, similar to the first case, in that bias does not preclude reliability. In this case, the Morning Star's comparatively small circulation and its historical ties to political organizations in Britain are cause for pause regarding its reliability. A Google Scholar search turns up sources attesting to the journalistic merits of the paper. I would consider this source to be situationally reliable depending on the context of the claim being cited; in particular, leftist papers often include coverage of labor news internationally that may otherwise be overlooked by English-language press. It would be inappropriate to cite them if they're directly involved or affiliated, but for non-controversial labor news they are independent of (e.g [2]) they may well be usable. Their media and culture reviews would also be usable for those topics, although likely not DUE if abundantly covered by more mainstream publications. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Playbill

• A lot of self-published content which I doubt the reliability of. No evidence this self-published content is verified. I would not consider this source reliable. ProofRobust 22:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Y, although usable as a primary source for WP:ABOUTSELF claims.

A few more

ProofRobust, a few more to practice on. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Cumhurriyet

• Has WP:USEBYOTHERS. It has been described as "the most important independent public interest newspaper in contemporary Turkey". Seems to have good editorial principles. I would say this source is reliable. ProofRobust 00:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Y

Greenpeace.org

• Seems to be an independent source. Care should be taken when using this source to see if it is DUE as it can be biased/overly critical towards individuals and organisations/governments regarding their treatment of the planet. However, it can provide reliable coverage of environmental issues not covered by other media outlets. ProofRobust 00:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

N, Greenpeace is an advocacy organization and its website reflects that: its output is primarily coverage of its own activities or calls to action for their supporters. There is one section of their website "Research", which looks more reliable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Rosguill, I assume that you are looking at the US version of the website. Just to let you know, my response was based on the UK version: Greenpeace.org.uk. This seems to provide analysis and reports of external events, e.g. the government approving a new coal mine, COP27 and onshore wind power. ProofRobust 10:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I should note though that a lot of these 'Latest updates' seem to be self-published. I would say that only articles marked as "PRESS RELEASE" and where the article subject is not about Greenpeace is reliable. ProofRobust 11:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree with this assessment: the coverage of independent events are written as opinion pieces in format (e.g. [3], [4], [5]). Notably, a handful of the articles are marked as being the product of investigative journalism and those may be reliable, but they appear to be external links to other websites (e.g. [6]). Meanwhile, press releases are not journalism, they are advocacy and/or self-promotion, and at best would be considered equivalent to an opinion piece. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Straits Times

• Seems like a well established newspaper. However, there are claims of government interference and there has been criticism of the reliability of some of their reports. I think it is reliable for most international reports but care should be taken when it reports on Singaporean topics. ProofRobust 00:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Y

Tablet

• A magazine focusing on Jewish news. Seems to have good editorial guidelines. Reliable for claims regarding Jewish news/events. ProofRobust 00:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Y, correct, but you missed that it almost exclusively publishes opinion pieces rather than journalistic reports, so WP:RSOPINION applies to essentially everything they publish. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Graded, ProofRobust _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Extra neutrality practice

For the following article, identify if it needs any edits for neutrality, and if so, draft a corrected version.

6. {{short description|2022 police brutality and religious persecution occurred in Ethiopia}}

Woybela Mariam Church police brutality
Location	Woybela Mariam Church, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Date	20 January 2022 (2022-01-20)
Target	Congregants at feast celebration
Weapons	Handgun Tear gas
Deaths	3
Injured	10
Motive	Oromo extremism Anti-Orthodox Anti-Ethiopianism
Accused	Oromo Liberation Front Oromo Liberation Army

On 20 January 2022, a group of Oromia police officers fired at Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo followers while the congregants transporting Ark of the Covenant to Woybela Mariam Church during feast day of Saint Michael in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, killing three people from direct gunshot, and injured ten other people.

Event

The Oromia police began assaulting the congregants of Orthodox Tewahedo while they transporting the Ark of the Covenant to Woybela Mariam Church during the feast day of Saint Michael. They threw tear gas to the children's choir to stop ritual progression. The mayhem was motivated when they saw the flag of Ethiopia shirt worn by the congregants at the celebration and they start to extort them. Three people were killed by the police brutality—both were from direct gunshot—at Alert Hospital in Addis Ababa while ten people were critically injured.

Response

The event stirred up criticism directed to Abiy Ahmed's government, who was blamed for not quickly responded to the action. Abune Melke Tsadek, Archbishop of Addis Ababa, had decision to keep the Ark of the Covenant to Keraneyo Medhanealem Church. Oromo Liberation Front and Oromo Liberation Army jointly accused for alleged massacre. In aftermath, the Ethiopian Orthodox followers began mobilizing to resume the solemn progression.

References

References

New draft

6. {{short description|Police violence against Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo followers in Ethiopia - 2022}}

Woybela Mariam Church police violence
Location	Woybela Mariam Church, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Date	20 January 2022 (2022-01-20)
Target	Congregants at feast celebration
Weapons	Handgun Tear gas
Deaths	3
Injured	10
Motive	Oromo extremism Anti-Orthodox Anti-Ethiopianism
Accused	Oromo Liberation Front Oromo Liberation Army

On 20 January 2022, a group of Oromia police officers fired at Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo followers while the congregants were transporting the Tabot to Woybela Mariam Church during feast day of Saint Michael in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, killing three people from direct gunshot, and injuring ten others.

Event

The Oromia police began attacking the congregants of Orthodox Tewahedo while they were transporting the Tabot to Woybela Mariam Church during the feast day of Saint Michael. They threw tear gas to the children's choir to stop the procession. The incident was triggered due to the forceful measures by Oromia police when they saw the flag of Ethiopia shirt being worn by the congregants at the celebration. Three people were killed in the incident. They died in Alert Hospital in Addis Ababa. Ten people were also injured.

Response

Prime minister Abiy Ahmed was indicted for failing to protect civilians from radical ethnic nationalist groups. He has not released an official statement as of 21 January 2022, despite being known for quickly responding to incidents using social media. Abune Melke Tsadek, Archbishop of Addis Ababa, made the decision to keep the Ark of the Covenant at the Keraneyo Medhanealem Church. The armed wing of the Oromo Liberation Front is said to be behind the attacks. In the aftermath, the Ethiopian Orthodox followers began mobilizing its followers to finalise the interrupted processionm which was attended by millions.

References

References

Rosguill, Finished. ProofRobust 18:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

N, the edits performed here fail to identify the significant bias of the Borkena source relative to the BBC coverage and leave in a lot of charged language that is not DUE. You also failed to remove portions of the infobox that are not backed by sources. For reference, here is a more-neutral revision of the article: Woybela Mariam Church incident (the revision you saw above corresponds to how it looked when it was first published). Overall, I would like to end our NPPSCHOOL here: I'm concerned that you have been rushing through these assignments, and that your speed is leading to errors. I don't think that continuing this training is a productive use of our time, and would encourage you to continue working on other fields of editing on Wikipedia rather than shooting for NPP (and frankly, given that the backlog has been under control for a few months now, those other areas of editing need your help more). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Rosguill, I appreciate the feedback. I would like to reassure you that I have not been rushing. I admit I was rushing a bit before, but I have been taking a great amount of care and time in the assignments since we resumed NPPSCHOOL. I also own up to the fact that I forgot to look at the infobox thoroughly. I am disappointed with the fact that you would like to end NPPSCHOOL, especially after spending so much time and effort on it. I do believe I have been showing very good progress but I will leave that to your better judgement. If I may ask, what other fields of editing would you recommend for me apart from anti-vandalism? ProofRobust 20:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend focusing on article-writing, or if that seems too daunting, working on other tasks that involve writing or editing content rather than just refereeing other editors' work. Keeping noticeboards like WP:RSN, WP:NORN, and WP:FRINGEN on your watchlist is also a good way to find articles and discussions that could use further input. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to why you would recommend article-writing as that seems to contradict your comments before. Thank you for your time. ProofRobust 20:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

My reservations are about how you would fare in a position where you are reviewing other people's work and the stressors associated with it. Put bluntly, you still have the overall demeanor of the editor who self-destructed following a run of bad AfD interactions two years ago. I think that working on the content-creation side of things is the best remedy, as it avoids the megalomania that reviewing other people's work can induce, develops empathy for the content creation process, and is an opportunity to demonstrate thorough research work. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Rosguill, thank you for your comments. I do deeply regret my actions of 2 years. I do believe that I have learned from my behaviour. I honestly fail to see a circumstance where the events of the past will not be held to my name, no matter the actions I take at present or the elapsed time since those actions. I have seriously been considering WP:CLEANSTART. Coming back to the point here, I do believe that with some more learning I can develop into a good patroller. I have professional experience with reviewing and giving feedback on other people's work and is something I feel very confident in doing. I politely ask you to reconsider your decision regarding ending NPPSCHOOL. Can I suggest me potentially going on a slow trial period where I will be reviewing a few pages per day as I do believe my potential can be seen better in action? For example, in this neutrality task, I did pick up on the biased source and if I saw that during new page patrolling I would have issues with it. To be fair, I would have some issues with my version as well. I admit that I do not have great writing skills i.e. writing articles, but I do believe I have good communication and reading skills. I wholeheartedly believe that my abilities will be more evident when actually patrolling new pages rather than NPPSCHOOL. ProofRobust 22:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

ProofRobust I feel your pain regarding this situation, but I actually do think that you will be able to come back from this in the future. It's worth noting that part of my reason for wanting to stop here is that I genuinely don't have much more that I could teach you in the NPPSCHOOL format: any exercises would have to be written on the spot by me, and I think that it could very quickly devolve into busywork for both of us. Additionally, at the risk of sounding like a zen koan, wanting advanced permissions on Wikipedia too much is not conducive to getting them. At best it betrays a zeal for process when what we should inculcate is zeal for the project of Wikipedia as a whole. Trying to pick up straight back where you left off editing is going to raise doubts about whether you've changed; if you can focus on other areas of the encyclopedia and demonstrate that you're a well-rounded Wikipedian, I think that your next attempt at getting NPP permissions will be successful. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)