User:Rosguill/NonsensicalSystem 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. Since you already have some experience reviewing articles, we can skip aspects of reviewing that you're already comfortable with in order to focus on the parts that need more attention.

Introductory questions

1. What is the purpose of new page patrol? Be specific, what kinds of content do we want to accept, what kinds of content do we want to keep out, and what kind of maintenance should we be performing beyond accepting/deleting articles?

NPP is for filtering out articles that do not follow Wikipedia's rules, such as promotional, copyrighted or non-notable material. At first it can seem like just accepting ones that follow the rules and deleting the ones that don't. However, a lot of the time articles that don't meet the right criteria can be improved upon with some work. Tagging is a useful way of marking something that needs to be improved in this way, and other quicker tasks such as adding categories and linking other articles to it can be done by the reviewers themselves. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 15:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Y, one additional kind of material that we want to keep out is WP:ATTACK content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

2. How do GNG, SNGs, and CSD criteria interact in the NPP process?

GNG is the main criteria for notability, and often determines if an article is accepted or nominated for deletion. Sources need to be checked by the reviewer to ascertain if the source offers more than a trivial mention, and is reliable, and is independent from the subject.

SNGs can be used as an alternative to GNG. They allow for a more precise measure for if a subject is notable or not, however can take time to understand if the reviewer is not familiar in the subjects area.

CSD is to quickly remove articles that are entirely incompatible with Wikipedia. This includes articles with blatant advertisement, copyrighted material, pure vandalism and test pages that have no uninfringing material worth saving. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 15:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Y I could quibble with the extent to which SNGs are an alternative vs. an additional signal to consider (particularly the case for subjective SNG criteria like NFILM or NACADEMIC), but the answer is generally correct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

3 What is the role of IAR in the NPP process?

Not every contribution has to follow the guidelines to the letter, however it should have the overall spirit of policy. This is important to remember when accepting articles, and reviewers should not get too hung up over more dubious cases.

Y

@Rosguill: Questions answered. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 15:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

NonsensicalSystem, good work. Next, let's do some review practice. Please select two articles from the new page queue that are significantly different from each other in subject matter and document what you would do step by step as if you were reviewing them. Here is a link to Earwig's copyvio tool if you were used to using the version that's attached to the NPP curaiton tool. Please jump to the middle of the review queue so that the articles you pick are less likely to be reviewed by another editor during this process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Its getting a little late where I am, is it ok if I do that tommorrow? NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 20:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

NonsensicalSystem, Absolutely, this entire tutorial can be done asynchronously. Complete the tasks when you get a chance and I'll do the same when it comes to grading them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Patrol walkthrough 1

I have selected Tuse Kro from Special:NewPagesFeed. First, I tested for copyvio. The search ended in 0% confidence. Then I checked the first source. It appeared to be a conservation case, describing it as having 'great cultural and historical value, possibly making it notable under WP:NBUILD. However, the source itself appears to be a primary source, making it less reliable. The second source is Danish newspaper article describing the renovation. The second source appears to be reliable, and a secondary source. Given the overall lack of sources, I decided to look for more. A google search ended with few pages, on of which was from the Danish Wiki. Others appeared to either be unrelated or primary sources, except for this on a architects website, though only described it in as much detail as the other two sources in the article already. Google books only had one hit, and only a few mentions in the entire book, and given that I could not copy the text and cannot read Danish, I did not know what the mentions even were. I would definitely tag as possibly non-notable over WP:GNG, and probably create an AfD for it as failing the GNG.

@Rosguill: First walkthrough complete. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 18:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

NonsensicalSystem, I think that generally your methodology here was sound, but you made an error in your assessment of NBUILD. The fact that the source establishing that the subject is on a protected registry is primary is not an issue, and is enough to establish notability. If the source supporting this claim were the self-published blog of the inn in question, then we may have cause to doubt reliability, but there's no reason to doubt the Danish government's registry itself, even if it's not the kind of coverage that would contribute directly to GNG. Given that I've indicated that proceeding to deletion is not appropriate, what other steps, if any, would you take when completing this review? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Ah. So official documents can be used even if they are primary? On the next steps, it appears that all of the information there is sourced, and has appropriate categories and no advertising or attacking language, so I would accept. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 18:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding primary sources, there's a distinction to be made between sources that can be used to support claims and sources that can be used to establish GNG. To establish GNG, sources need to be secondary. However, primary sources can generally be used to support non-contentious claims, and in this case the claim to being on the Danish protected sites registry is both non-contentious and enough to establish notability per NBUILD. Government protected sites lists are generally pretty reputable, as there's virtually no incentive for the government to mislead the public about which sites it considers to be of cultural importance. The only edge cases where being included on such a list may be considered insufficient for establishing notability would be if there was something off about the listing itself (e.g., a building listed for a 1-year period several decades ago) or if there's reasons to doubt the government's legitimacy, (e.g. an unrecognized state such as Republic of Artsakh claiming a site as cultural heritage, or to invert the scenario, Azerbaijan claiming a site in territory that is controlled by the Republic of Artsakh as cultural heritage).

The steps you laid out for completing the review are correct, but I would add to them 1) verify that the image in the article is not a copyright violation (go to its page, check the rights listed, and if it's listed as "own work" copy the image url and paste it into a tineye.com search) 2) writing a short description (for which you can use User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper.js) and 3) adding wikiproject templates to the talk page (which you can do using User:Evad37/rater.js)