User talk:Zippybonzo/Training/NPP/11wallisb

Instructions: @11wallisb:, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.

Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

Curation tool video

Learn the basic flow chart.

When in doubt refer to this flow chart.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the curation tool video in the right margin, and also review NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page. You cannot possibly over-ping me.

Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP:PAGs as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part so we can discuss your responses or any questions you may have before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.

Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so as mentioned in our earlier discussion, you may work at a pace that suits you. A tip before you begin, at the bottom of this page is a tip section which is worth reviewing because there are some handy scripts you can add to your user common.js that may prove quite helpful for editing, and reviewing articles.

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!!

Notability (Pt. 1)

• Notability

Coverage in terms of reliable sources and ongoing coverage, not just reports on an event at the time of it happening for example, are usually good indicators of whether a subject is notable and potentially qualifiable for a Wikipedia article. When getting consensus of an article subject's notability, efforts should be made to locate sources beyond what is already present in the article at that point in time. Alternatives to deletion are preferable if there is some evidence of notability to a subject, such as a merge to a section in a parent article, this way the information from the standalone article can be retained somewhere relevant. Whilst an article's subject should aim to meet both GNG or SNG in specific cases to establish notability, it is even better if it can satisfy both set of guidelines. 11WB (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo, just a ping to let you know I have answered this section! Thanks! 11WB (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Y Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 06:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• General Notability Guideline (GNG)

My understanding of this is that for a subject to warrant having a stand-alone article, said subject matter (whether a place, person, event - anything) should have more than just "presumed" coverage (routinely discussed so that it can be decided whether the "significant" coverage is in fact "reliable" coverage). Once this is established, sources can be regarded as either being "independent" of the subject, so a website, author or publisher that offers commentary in some form that does not come directly from the subject (so for a company, sources used should not be published directly by that company). Sources should be "secondary" (they are preferred over primary sources), at least one step removed from the topic. Finally, the sources should be "reliable". Reliable sources can be published works such as books, website articles, newspaper reports or video form (but not from a self-published source like YouTube), among others. If the subject has reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject and there are several of them, then the subject should qualify for its own Wikipedia article. 11WB (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Y Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

This refers to notability guidelines laid out in specific project areas, for example at WP:AVINOTE for aviation related Wikipedia articles and more specifically WP:AIRCRASH for aviation accidents and incidents articles. For example, an aviation accident resulting in the loss of life is likely to have enough coverage to qualify for its own article, however accidents involving light aircraft or military aircraft are usually not notable, as they outnumber accidents of those in commercial aircraft. Light or military aircraft could qualify however, if the investigation of said accident results in a notable change or changes in that countries laws. These types of specific notability guidelines can be found in other Wikipedia subject areas as well. Despite SNG, it cannot override GNG, therefore the subject should meet both SNG and by extension GNG to qualify for its own Wikipedia article. 11WB (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Y Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest

This is an SNG page that covers guidelines on organisation notability, for example companies, small or large and other groups such as education establishments like schools. There are higher standards for organisations due to the prevalance of articles that exist for the sole purpose of advertising. An organisation does not inherit notability due to specific individuals involved (the reverse is also true), organisations must have substantial coverage that is independent from itself, the coverage must also be reliable and significant. They must all, no matter the type, meet GNG. For a specific example, a company that did not meet any of the organisation SNG was the one written about in this draft which was rejected due to half of the sources being from the company the article was about, and the rest of the sourcing providing no evidence of the company's notability. Even though it was not written as an advertisement it did not qualify for a standalone Wikipedia article in mainspace. 11WB (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Y Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• WP:RS

Reliable sources are sources that are considered trustworthy for use in providing information to the public through Wikipedia articles. An academic publication should be backed by peer-reviews and not be a preprint, such as from a repository like arXiv as these have not yet been vetted and are considered unreliable. Sources should generally not be from user generated content, and definitely not from content generated by an LLM like ChatGPT. Such sources do not meet Wikipedia's standards and should be removed and if possible, replaced with reliable sources. Wikipedia articles on subjects in the medical field or biographies on living people are held to a higher standard when it comes to sourcing as misinformation or opinionated sources can be damaging to the subject or person they are about. Without reliable sources, notability cannot be established and without notability there cannot be an article. 11WB (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Y pretty much sums it up, I suggest you install CiteUnseen and/or Headbomb's Highlighter script (both available in the tips section at the bottom). Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?

If it doesn't violate policy (such as copyvio), I would first establish which project area the article comes under and analyse it under their specific SNG. Following this (or before if a specific project area isn't immediately evident), I would go through the GNG to see if these are met. Upon doing this I would have an idea about the article subject's notability, at which point I would continue to the NPP basic flow chart. 11WB (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Y. @11wallisb, can you do the Notability page at the top as well, it seems you missed it. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that was an error on my part, sorry about that! I will complete that section before moving onto part 2 this afternoon! 11WB (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo, I have answered the notability section at the top! 11WB (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

• Assume good faith

This is a very important guideline. Editors, especially new editors, are bound to make mistakes that other editors could deem as being deliberate at a surface level. It is very important to do a bit of a background check to ascertain whether the editor in question is doing something deliberately or mistakenly, as the two end up with very different outcomes. An example of this is when there was a new editor who became stressed that the articles they had written were being nominated for AfD - because of this they decided to return their article to draft, even though the AfD had not yet been closed. They were then informed of this quite matter-of-factly by another editor. I decided to attempt to reassure them that it was okay. Unfortunately, the next day the editor made the same error on another AfD discussion, which was also an article they had contributed to. I believed this was still only a mistake, so I informed an administrator about it. Unfortunately, the editor was blocked for 31 hours as a preventative measure. I had assumed good faith and told them they would not get into trouble, however I had not taken WP:GFISNOT into consideration. Specifically, 'editors should remember to not disregard patterns of harmful editing, nor should they overlook obvious attempts to deceive, vandalize, or push a biased agenda'. Despite this error on my part, I decided to stick with my assuming good faith approach and left a message encouraging the editor to not let this temporary block discourage them from contributing to Wikipedia in the future. 11WB (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Y good example. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Biographies of living people

Articles that fall under BLP are far more rigorously assessed than those that are not. The policies for BLP articles are numerous. They require that all information present in such articles be sourced from non self-published sources and are both reliable and verifiable. The risk of harm in the forms of defamation, libel or misinformation, along with privacy are far greater with BLP. The policies laid out in WP:BLP help mitigate those risks of harm to the individuals the articles are about. A specific example from a BLP article that comes under WP:DOBCONFLICT was from this talk page request (along with many others that are now archived here). The specific issue here was that there was a disagreement between which source was considered reliable for the article individuals age. A court document from the Supreme Court of British Columbia stated the year of birth as 2007, 'Their daughter, C.E.Q.H. was born in 2007.'. Editors on Wikipedia have attempted to amend this by using the age stated by the individual themself on Twitter (younger): here for example. Twitter is not considered a reliable source under WP:RSPX, so the court document is used as the reliable source for the correct age. The policy under WP:DOBCONFLICT clearly states, 'A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.' In this example there was clear reason to doubt it due to the existence of the court document. 11WB (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Y Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 12:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)

For Wikipedia to remain a respectable encyclopaedic source of information the guidelines laid out in WP:COI are vital. Disclosing a COI is the right thing to do, however it is better not to edit articles where a COI would be present to the editor. Even the most minor of COIs are problematic as even the slightest involvement can result in information being written in a manner that is biased or missing crucial details. Editors who are paid to edit the articles of the company or person they've been paid by are usually vetted through the AfC process or NPP reviewers. However, articles that slip through can be problematic for readers who are relying on information to be written in a neutral way. Extra care must be taken when reviewing a draft with a COI disclosed. Any instances of writing that would result in the integrity of Wikipedia being brought into question (like those listed here) should be removed and the draft declined (or if in mainspace, userfied). 11WB (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Y, COI edits can also be implemented through edit requests which generally helps the edits stay neutral because they go through some review before being implemented. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 12:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Copyright

Everything on Wikipedia that is taken from somewhere else on the internet (whether it be text, video, images or any other type of related media), must be licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 or one of its older license types such as 2.0. They can also be licensed under GDFL, however it must be dual licensed with CC BY-SA and cannot be licensed under GDFL alone. If copyrighted text or other content is found in an AfC draft for example, the steps laid out here must be followed to ensure Wikipedia isn't in violation of hosting copyrighted work. This doesn't always turn out to be the case though, for example here where the suspected copyrighted text turned out to be a WP:BACKWARDSCOPY instead. In this scenario, the draft author can take the steps laid out in WP:BACKWARDSCOPY to make sure the correct notice is on the webpage where the backwards copy is present. Ultimately, the content on Wikipedia has to be attributed to the right place and care has to be taken to make sure original work is not being used where it is not meant to be. 11WB (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Y, some non-free content can be used under fair use WP:FAIRUSE but otherwise this is correct Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 12:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I remembered that a few days after posting that answer! I support fair use and mistakenly forgot to include that here! Thank you! 11WB (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Hoaxes

Knowingly writing and publishing articles on hoaxes goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia. One of my own articles, Cryptogram of Olivier Levasseur, is about something that is now well known to most likely be a hoax. However, I did not write the article in a way that makes it sound like fact. It was written in a way that summarises the subject, provides historical background, and even authenticity - using reliable sources from historical novels, books and more recent internet articles. I also took the measure of having the article assessed on its talk page, beyond the AfC and NPP reviews that take place. If something is documented as a well known hoax, this can be written about on Wikipedia, so long as it isn't represented as fact. 11WB (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Y Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 06:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

— and, don't write hoaxes, one example that is quite well known is the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident which is what eventually resulted in AfC being created. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 06:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I remember reading about that a little white ago. It is good the person who did that eventually came forward. 11WB (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Attack pages

Attack pages do not have a place on Wikipedia, whether its an article that attacks its subject, or an essay or talk page that attacks an individual or a subject. Wholly negative articles or those that threaten others are not helpful nor necessary. They do not help whatever situation the attack page in question came from and most importantly, they are not what Wikipedia is for. I have yet to come across an attack page, however I would follow the procedure as explained at WP:ATP. 11WB (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo, ping to let you know Part 2 has been completed! Thank you! 11WB (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@11wallisb, feel free to move onto part 3 when you're ready. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 06:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Y Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 06:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)

This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related. Also see Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Disputes and consensus.

• Discussions with creators of new pages

Good communication, as with anything, is key when reviewing articles through AfC and NPP. An example I have of this involves the Enderman article. I reviewed this article through AfC and decided to decline it due to sourcing and content availability issues. This draft had already been declined numerous times beforehand as well. The next day, the article was moved to mainspace, which confused me. I went to the talk page of another reviewer who had declined the draft twice before me and asked what had happened. They responded that the author (a new editor on the english Wikipedia) 'did a copy-and-paste move from the draft page, in order to circumvent AfC and disruptively move it into mainspace'.

Seeing that an AfD had been opened on the now mainspace article, I decided to comment what I had been told about the new author on the talk page (violating WP:READFIRST in the process). I would've known however, had I read the already opened DRV, that this information was completely wrong! (The AfD was then procedurally closed as the DRV was still open.) This was explained to me back on the talk page the next day by another editor (who I accused of potential tendentious editing). The article had actually been recreated by the new author, blanked and then redirected by another editor and then a back-and-forth occurred. I didn't immediately accept this explanation, but after reading the DRV and rechecking the edit histories, I was then able to accept that this was in fact the correct version of events. As a result of this the new author wrote a long apology on the still open DRV - even though they had not actually done anything wrong. I hashed things out with the editor I didn't initially believe and wrongly accused of tendentious editing, along with also apologising to the new author for the comment I left on the AfD, striking through it after it was reopened upon the closing conclusion of the DRV.

This entire situation came down to a few things. Firstly, I didn't read every single discussion and made a comment based on information I believed without doing further research to confirm those claims. This was a very bad mistake. Secondly, the new author, who didn't speak English as their first language, had not received good communication from anybody involved in the reviewing process of their draft. Another thing that was forgotten by multiple reviewers here is that AfC is optional to those with a high enough edit count. This was a confusing and hard to navigate situation. Respectful communication should not just be a requirement, but should happen without any hesitation. This situation could have gone every differently had myself and others made better decisions. 11WB (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Y Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 22:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Template notifications vs manually notification/discussion

Using templates on talk pages or leaving a regular message is dependent on the situation. For example, if a (usually) new editor has forgotten to sign their comment, I first add '— Preceding unsigned comment added by time, day month year (UTC) (talk • contribs) ' with the relevant username and time information filled in. Following this, I post on that same editors' talk page using the 'subst:uw-tilde' template with the relevant page included. There are templates used at places like AfD, however these are usually automatically done by a script or gadget such as XFDcloser.

If the editor in question requires something more specific however, for example regarding specific sources, a non-template message would then be appropriate. 11WB (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Y —I would also mention the templates we use for AfD notifications and draftifying but they're usually done w/ scripts although occasionally you might want to write your own message. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 22:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, XFDcloser covers that when nominating, relisting or closing discussions at AfD. In the event there is an issue, communication is of course the way to solve it! 11WB (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I have added in that extra detail to my answer above as suggested, @Zippybonzo! Just for reference, a specific template to notify an editor one of their article's has been nominated is Template:Afd notice. This is one of the templates automatically posted by XFDcloser! 11WB (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

It can be difficult to judge tone through text. For this reason, I try to come across in a positive manner wherever possible. Clarifying things is also important, for example articulating a point as clearly as possible to another editor. As Wikipedia is available to the world, many editors, even on the English Wikipedia, won't speak English as their first language, so having patience and explaining things a second time is often necessary. Knowledge of the subject is required to be able to explain something with the right tone and articulation. 11WB (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Y Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 22:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Wikilove/positive comments

WikiLove is all forms of communication and acts that signify respect towards fellow editors. Positive comments can be anything as simple as thanking another editor for doing something. This allows people to know that they are valued and their time spent on Wikipedia is appreciated. There are specific WikiLove templates which can be given to other editors for extra significance. Finally, Barnstars can be awarded editor to editor for specific things such as being civil or enhancing Wikipedia with programming bots, tools or repairing links. Barnstars, whilst great, should generally be given more sparingly than other types of WikiLove.

Even when disagreements happen between editors, it is never a bad idea to clear the air. I had a disagreement regarding what had happened in the Enderman situation I explained in above. I decided it was better to try to alleviate any negative feelings by offering a bubble tea. They accepted and things were left on a positive note. 11WB (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Y — I like the thanks button but I do also like to occasionally throw out barnstars and various other WikiLove. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 22:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Warning templates

Templates are posted to editor talk pages as warnings for misconduct such as vandalism, but also for the purpose of welcoming new editors to the project. For AfC or NPP specifically, templates that relate to articles being accepted or declined are used, templates relating to copyright violations and for new articles that are moved back to draftspace as they aren't quite ready to be made public yet. Communication after posting these templates is still necessary, as many editors—new or old—may have questions that require further discussion.

It is considered disruptive to use templates inappropriately or to protest against a decision that has been made, such as an AfC decline. 11WB (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo, I have completed part 3, courtesy ping! 11WB (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Y @11wallisb feel free to move onto part 4 when you're ready :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 22:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

• Articles for Deletion

AfD is the process used to find consensus on whether a specific article should be deleted, made into a redirect, merged with another article, returned to draftspace (userfied) or kept. Many articles have straightforward outcomes, however others are unique and require longer to establish what should be done. The usual length of AfD discussion is 1 week, however AfDs can be relisted if consensus has not yet been established. These can be performed by an uninvolved editor (though some experience of AfD participation is preferred). Specific closure outcomes can only be performed by administrators however, such as article deletions. In the event a closure is believed to not be correct or is a WP:BADNAC (a poor non-admin closure), a deletion review can then take place to determine whether that AfD can be reopened. 11WB (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Y Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 14:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• BEFORE nominating

There are many checks that have to be taken before finalising an AfD nomination. Making sure the article topic has references either through doing a Google search, checking The Wikipedia Library and looking for published works (there are others in addition to these). These sources should verify the information that is written in the article.

Either before or during a AfD, The Heymann Standard applies, whereby if an article can be improved it shouldn't reasonably be sent to AfD, or if it is improved during the AfD discussion, it should be kept. If the article could be merged into another relevant article, this should be proposed on the article's talk page before taking it to AfD.

There is a list of checks that can be taken at WP:BEFORE. The above is what I would consider the most important of these. A written statement is helpful for other editors to understand why the nominator thinks the article should be deleted or merged. WP:ATD is another consideration that should be used in preference to deletion where appropriate. 11WB (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Y, there's a script (User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/NPPLinks.js), that's useful for doing quick BEFORE searches and adds some other useful links. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• PROD and BLPPROD

PRODs—proposed deletions—are used for generally uncontroversial article deletions. A template is added to an article proposing it for deletion, if after seven days no other editors remove the template, the PROD is successful and the article is deleted. If the template is removed, the PROD is not successful and the article can be submitted to AfD instead for a potential deletion by consensus instead. BLP PRODs—biographies of living people article proposed deletions—are slightly tougher in their implementation, requiring a reliable source to be added by an editor for the template to be removed. If no source is added about the individual after one week, the BLP PROD is successful and the article is then deleted. Both PRODs and BLP PRODs can be endorsed by other editors who support the PROD. 11WB (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Y, generally for anything that's not notable it's the best way to review them, although if they are likely to be an edge case or could be reasonably perceived as notable despite being an edge case, I'd take them to AfD because after that the article is either deleted or reviewed. If it's notable but it's just poor quality content, either improve it or tag it but be careful of WP:TAGBOMBING, because eventually tags are pretty useless, the maintenance backlogs only ever really get longer so to an extent it's pointless lol Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• WP:Soft delete

A soft delete, in respect to AfD, is similar to a successful PROD but with either no participation or minimal participation in the discussion by participants other than the nominator of the article. This type of deletion is outlined by the closing editor and can be undone through WP:REFUND. 11WB (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Y Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• WP:SOFTSP

A soft redirect is basically a redirect to a relevant Wikimedia sister project or in exceptional circumstances, another site entirely. These redirects, unlike in-Wikipedia redirects, require the reader to click onto them, rather than it happen automatically. Since participating actively at AfD since the end of May, I have not yet encountered a soft redirect close, or a transwiki close. Based on this, I will assume that these types of closes are not commonplace. 11WB (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Y — I would personally say that they're only really useful for content similar to a sister project, but they're not really commonplace to see, while I'm not the most active participant in AfD, I still rarely find one when I'm reading around. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy Deletion

Speedy deletion is where an article meets the specific criteria in the WP:GCSD (general criteria for speedy deletion) list. Any editor can request a speedy deletion for an article by placing the respective criteria's template on the target article page. The different criteria are identified in number|letter format, such as A1. Another editor can remove the template as long as it falls under a specific subset of criteria. As only administrators can perform deletions, a speedy deletion is considered a way to bypass the full length of a deletion discussion, such as at AfD.

CSD template application is the usual way speedy deletions are completed, however they can also take place at AfD. A recent example involved an WP:ATTACK article, which I came across whilst patrolling at WP:NPP. I nominated the article for deletion with reasons pertaining to undue weight from certain countries, which is a violation of WP:NPOV, specifically WP:CSB. Other editors !voted for delete in a substantial number within the first 36 hours, mainly for violating WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK. I decided to contact an administrator who is active at AfD and inquire about a potential snow close (whereby many participants have made it almost impossible for the reverse to take place). This was subsequently done and the AfD was closed as a speedy delete for being an attack article under WP:G10. 11WB (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Zippybonzo, I have finished part 4! Thanks! 11WB (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Y — if in doubt re attack pages, I'd take the risk especially when it's a disparaging subject or something that could violate BLP, and particularly take care with well known people or politicians. As for the rest, G11 is pretty self explanatory and you get a lot of it in userspace and draftspace (and you also get U5 sometimes), which I occasionally find as an entertaining read. Twinkle is usually my tool of choice for CSDs because of the versatility With regards to the rest of the course, can you finish part 5, and them let me know some times that you're free in the next few days for the exercises, obviously since you are on NPP trial you're welcome to take all actions, but the patrollers will be out and about so it's best to get them done quickly. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course! Thank you for the information you have shared and for marking everything so far! I have been quite active at the backlog drive. I haven't gotten involved in anything from there, contrary to August. I think for this week Sunday works best for me, though not the morning. It may be better to do the exercise next week sometime. 11WB (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

• Improvement Tagging

Improvement tagging is important so that other editors know of the issues a specific article has at that moment in time. There are many available tags on the page curation tool that new page reviewers use when reviewing new articles. I learnt more about tagging from another new page reviewer whilst working at AfC, they explained that template banners (tags) are not meant for editors and not readers and that something called banner blindness exists—basically, they aren't a get-out-of-jail-free card for articles being problematic. Articles also shouldn't be over-tagged, as this also causes disruption to the article as well. An example of this is seen in this revision of the Thin Lizzy article. (This is also where the multiple issues template comes in handy!) 11WB (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Y, I would honestly say that a lot of the time tagging is not really worth it anymore. The WP:BACKLOGS are very long and take a lot of time to be done, it definitely shouldn't be used as a way to get the article "reviewed", but they can sometimes help people find articles as and when needed. Sorry for the late comment, have been quite busy lately. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Zippybonzo! No problem at all! I'm currently busy off-Wiki as well, technically on a wikibreak at the moment. I've made the time to respond here though, as I've committed to completing NPP school! I have withdrawn from the backlog drive as I won't be able to put in the time for the remainder of this month, but I look forward to returning soon and finishing this training. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Categorizing

Categories are basically the subject which a specific article belongs to. For example, Pokémon Black and White being a Pokémon game, belongs in Category:Pokémon video games. It doesn't need to be put in Category:Pokémon, as the video game category is already listed there anyway. This is how most other categories are laid out, in a tree organisational manner. 11WB (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo, had some time and decided to finish off the bullet points today! I've spoken to @asilvering and think that completing the NPP exercise in a quieter month, such as October, makes more sense, rather than trying to beat other reviewers who are participating in the backlog drive. I am not going to reapply for new page reviewer now until I have passed NPP/S, the backlog is completed and I've hopefully received feedback and my performance at both AfC and AfD is up to a standard I feel is acceptable for having that right. At that time, I'll probably apply for another month trial, just to be absolutely sure I am suitable for the right permanently, at the discretion of the administrators! Thanks for all your help so far! 11WB (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

NPP Exercise

Before you begin, read the Notability in a nutshell banner at the top of this page, study it and think hard about the message it is sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, please do not hesitate to take action as you would normally do as a bona fide patroller.

I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. The articles I've chosen are unreviewed, but it is possible they will have been reviewed by the time you get to them, so it is crucial to begin your reviews as quickly as possible. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary - take action as you would if you were reviewing them for NPP.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Discussion

Evaluation

Once I have completed the evaluation and you have passed the course, you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review.

Tips & scripts

• User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool – it adds a small linked menu bar on the top right side of article pages as follows: [ History * Log * Filter * Talk Page * Notice * NPP Flowchart ]
• User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft – important script that is used to WP:DRAFTIFY articles (move to draft space), including cleanup and author notification.
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol is the foundation on which we operate. Add the link to your bookmarks menu for easy access.
• User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js - a very useful tool and easy to install. The script prepends a small icon to each citation in the Reference section indicating the grading and type of source; most are in sync with WP:RSP.
• User:Headbomb/unreliable – another somewhat useful tool that grades sources using highlight colors –
• User:Evad37/duplinks-alt - highlights duplicate wikilinks. We should only wikilink once, sometimes twice if wikilinked in the lead and again further enough down in the article that it would prove useful. When reviewing, you can quickly find and eliminate wikilink overkill.

NPP Forums

• WT:New pages patrol/Reviewers
• Discord - where the NPP team hangs out.

Userbox

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

This User went through the rigors of WP:NPP school and graduated!!