Instructions: CharlieMehta, 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.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the 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.

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 policies and guidelines 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 in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses 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 you may work at a comfortable pace. Good luck!! – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Notability

Notability for me is something about a topic which is significantly covered in well-established publications like newspapers (Wikipedia:RSP, that's my first point to check a media site's credibility), books (reputed publishers not the vanity ones), or academic journals (journals which are specifically covered in Wikipedia Library). Also, relying on a single detailed source is usually insufficient, it is so then I try to abide with Wikipedia:THREE - though it is just an essay. Overall, the topic should have a lasting impact or interest, rather than being a fleeting or temporary phenomenon.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• General Notability Guideline (GNG)

As per my understanding after reading the GNG guidelines, I am clear that it is the cornerstone of every page's assessment. Significant coverage in reliable sources suggests, but does not guarantee, that a topic deserves its own Wikipedia article. This coverage should directly address the topic in detail, without requiring original research, and be more than a trivial mention. Reliable sources have editorial integrity and can include any published work but again we should be careful to distinguish editorial content from user-gernrated content like in the case of Wikipedia:FORBES. To establish notability, multiple secondary sources are generally expected, but the exact number depends on the quality and depth of the sources - this is a grey area. These sources must be independent of the subject, meaning they are not created by the subject or its affiliates, like advertisements (or Wikipedia:ADMASQ) or autobiographies

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

Subject-specific notability guidelines in Wikipedia is an add-on to General Notability Gudileines. If there's uncertainty about a topic's notability under GNG, we use SNG to evaluate it. For example, we use Wikipedia:Nactor for actors, Wikipedia:Nacademic for academics, and Wikipedia:NBOOKS for books

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

Evaluating organizations on Wikipedia is often controversial. To assess them, I would first check the Wikipedia:NCORP,Wikipedia:ORGCRIT, Wikipedia:LISTED, and Wikipedia:SIGCOV guidelines. If there's an AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussion, I will also look at the Wikipedia:SIRS table.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• WP:RS

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is my quick reference guide. But, sometimes if I have doubt on certain publications then I visit the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

How would you define RS, and what criteria should it meet? – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I follow this; first check with the WP:RSP; second, see if a staff writer wrote it; third, check if the source is independent (for example, NDTV used to be considered independent for Adani articles, but not anymore after being acquired); fourth, check for significant coverage and secondary sources for any detailed analysis or critical opinions. Charlie (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Y Additionally, we can check the editorial oversight. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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

First, I quickly review the article and assess it according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Next, I check for copyright violations. Then, I open the page curation panel to look at the article's history of edits and rejections. Once I have a full picture, I check the citations for reliability using Wikipedia:CITEUNSEEN and CITEHIGHLIGHTER. After that, I look for promotional language with the DETECTPROMO script. Finally, I consider the GNG and SNG.

Y Each reviewer has their own approach, but they all follow the same steps you mentioned. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Assume good faith

"Assume good faith" means that when we see changes or edits made by other users, we should believe they were trying to help improve the content, even if their edits seem wrong or confusing. It's about trusting that people are contributing with good intentions unless there is clear evidence otherwise. This approach helps keep discussions friendly and productive. What I mean is that we should avoid arguments about edits and not take things personally.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Biographies of living people

Wikipedia's rules for writing about living people stress the need for a neutral and respectful tone, balancing praise and criticism fairly. Articles shouldn't attack or unfairly target individuals. It's important not to misuse primary sources or rely on self-published ones, as they can be biased or inaccurate. Any controversial or disputed information without strong sources should be removed to ensure the subject is portrayed fairly. Articles should also have a "Further Reading" section with credible sources for more information, and an "External Links" section for relevant websites.

Y The 'Further Reading' and 'External Links' sections are optional but can be helpful. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)

It's been noticed that these articles are sometimes created by a single-purpose account (Wikipedia:Single-purpose account) or an ID similar to the topic's name. Before questioning these editors, it's a good idea to do some research first.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Copyright

Wikipedia's copyright guidelines state that all content must be original or correctly credited to free sources that are either in the public domain or have a Creative Commons licenses, allowing anyone to use, modify, and share it. Editors should create articles or drafts in their own words, avoid copying from copyrighted materials, and ensure all media including images, graphs, videos are free to use or has a compatible license. Also, plagiarism is not allowed, and any sources used must be cited correctly. This ensures Wikipedia's content is legal and accessible to everyone.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hoaxes

As an editor at Wikipedia, it's crucial to understand that Wikipedia strictly prohibits adding hoaxes, false information, or unverifiable content to its articles, as this undermines the platform's credibility and can harm both Wikipedia's reputation and the individual responsible. Intentionally inserting disinformation, even as a test, is strongly discouraged and can lead to being blocked or banned. Instead, it's more beneficial to focus on correcting inaccuracies in existing content. However, there are exceptions like the Piltdown Man and The War of the Worlds (1938 radio drama), because they are clearly marked as hoaxes. If I have any doubts, I will reach out to more experienced editors through their talk pages or Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Attack pages

Wikipedia's guidelines for handling attack pages are designed to address pages that unfairly target "subject" with negative comments or threats, often without proper sources. When an attack page is identified, it should be quickly marked with the "db-attack tag" and usually removed. If a notable person has an attack page, it should be replaced with a neutral, fact-checked page that presents information fairly. This approach helps maintain Wikipedia's standards and ensures the protection of individuals. However, there are certain procedures, like Wikipedia:Requests for comment, that are not affected by this policy and follow different rules.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading

• Discussions with creators of new pages

As reviewers, we need to interact to article creators politely and kindly. It's important to write clear edit summaries and interact well with creators and other editors. Sometimes, creators might ignore our messages and advice, like in the case of Somany Ceramics (User talk:Sarahkilledar). However, we should stay calm and always offer help. If by any chance a conflict arises, it's better to step back and guide those creators and editors to appropriate forums.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

Wikipedia's automated notifications let editors know when key things happen, like when their edits are undone or someone responds to their comments. These notifications help editors stay updated without having to check everything themselves. But there are times when it's best to talk or notify manually, such as when you need to explain something complex, settle a disagreement, or collaborate on an important issue. Having manual discussions i.e., non-automated ones helps make communication clearer and promotes better understanding among editors.

Y Also, we should use manual messages for experienced and good-standing editors. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

Our discussions should be polite and based on Wikipedia guidelines. There is always a possibility that the interpretation of those guidelines may vary from editor to editor, which may result in some sort of disagreement. But, we should maintain our cool and not prove our superiority. If there is any kind of altercation, it is better to issue level 1 warning and in extreme cases report it to Wikipedia:ANI.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wikilove/positive comments

It's important to remember that everyone here started as a new editor and will gain experience over time. When I first began, many editors encouraged me, so I feel it's natural to do the same for newer editors. Showing appreciation, like thanking someone for their efforts, helps them feel recognized and inspired. This fosters a more positive atmosphere where editors are more likely to stay engaged and keep contributing to the community.

• Warning templates

Wikipedia warning templates are ready-made messages that let editors know when they've broken rules, such as adding incorrect information or acting inappropriately. These messages are placed on the editor's talk page to remind them of the rules and help them do better. They should be used kindly and thoughtfully, with the aim of helping the editor improve. The purpose is not to punish but to guide them in following Wikipedia's guidelines, ensuring the community remains respectful and the content stays trustworthy.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Articles for Deletion

The AfD process on Wikipedia is used to decide if an article should be removed because it doesn't meet notability or content guidelines. We should generally use AfD when an article lacks reliable sources or is irrelevant. To propose deletion, we add a specific template to the article and start a discussion. However, AfD should not be used to target individuals or settle scores, and if an article survives the deletion, it shouldn’t be re-nominated right away; a cooling period of at least 6 months is recommended to allow time for improvements and address any issues.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• BEFORE nominating

Based on my understanding of Wikipedia:BEFORE, before nominating a Wikipedia article for deletion, we should first check if the topic meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability), also ensure it has reliable (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) and independent sources (Wikipedia:RSP), and review the content for accuracy and neutrality. We should also look for any past deletion discussions to avoid redundancy, and consider if the article can be improved instead of deleted as per Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard.

Y We should search for sources on Google and other search engines too. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• PROD and BLPPROD (optional - already addressed above)

• WP:Soft delete (optional - already addressed above)

• Speedy Deletion (optional - already addressed above)

• Improvement Tagging

Wikipedia tagging is when editors put tags on pages to point out problems like missing references or biased content. In my case, I use Wikipedia:Twinkle. This tool helps me put tags so I can let others know what needs fixing. Once the problem is solved, the tag can be removed by any editor, and it’s good to explain it via Help:Edit summary why it was removed. Sometimes, editors might disagree about a tag, and they should talk it over on the article’s talk page. Also, it’s important not to add too many unnecessary tags, especially to articles that are already decent such C-class article. Instead of tagging such articles, we as patroller can sometimes fix the issue themselves or leave a note on the talk page. Tags should be used carefully, especially for subtle but important problems such as in case of start or stub-class articles, which need significant improvement.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Categorizing (optional)

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. Praveen Singh

• Praveen Singh does not meet the qualifications for a Wikipedia page, especially under the Wikipedia:NPOL guidelines, which apply in the Indian context where I am also located. His position as a block pramukh does not hold national significance or represent a state/province-wide office in countries with federal systems. Therefore, his page may be eligible for deletion. I am opting for the AfD process to encourage broader participation and to ensure that no potential points of notability have been overlooked in my role as a patroller.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

2. Rose Betts

• Rose Betts’ notability is currently uncertain as we can say that "this page is sitting on a fence." According to CiteHighlighter, she has three reliable sources: Sweety High, Official Charts, and NPR. However, only two of these sources provide in-depth and significant coverage. If we can identify at least one more substantial source, ideally from the RSP list, her page could be approved based on the Wikipedia:THREE guideline (which is more of an essay than a strict rule). Personally, I believe pages like hers should be protected under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red project, with support sought from project participants to ensure its passing.

A 'BEFORE' search shows enough reliable sources with significant coverage of her, although your answer is also correct, as some sources are primary, and others are from databases. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

3. Manoranjan Saha Memorial B.ed College

• This college does not meet WP:NSCHOOL guidelines, as it falls short in several key areas. The institution lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, which are essential for establishing notability. Without substantial recognition or documentation in widely accepted publications i.e., WP:RSP, the college does not achieve the visibility or impact needed to fulfill notability standards. Also, this college is not an independent accredited institution; it is affiliated with the Baba Saheb Ambedkar Education University. Therefore, it does not meet the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES requirements. For now, the page could be merged with the University's page (idle or not? - that's debatable). Based on this reasoning, we as editors should also review the Category:Colleges affiliated to University of North Bengal and assess the notability of each individual college. The list is fairly manageable in size, and many of these affiliated colleges lack basic citations.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

4. Aanchal Kumar

• The subject of this page does not meet notability standards such as WP:NBIO and WP:GNG or WP:SNG. In addition to that, the citations given are insufficient and do not possess the required quality and reliability. Although she may have won a beauty pageant, it is not a major national fashion or beauty event. Contrasting WP:INHERENT. Also, being married to a businessman who has a wikipedia page of his own does not automatically establish notability by association WP:INHERITED.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

5. Jai Hanuman (film)

• Since only the poster (as a First Look) was released a day ago, there may not be enough verified information or notable media coverage to establish this upcoming film's significance at this time. It seems to be WP:TOOSOON. This page should be either deleted or moved to drafts.

Y – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Final review: CharlieMehta CONGRATULATIONS on passing this course. You can now request the NPP rights. Your responses were insightful, showing a clear understanding of the expectations for quality reviewing. I believe a trial period isn't necessary, as you've already shown great responsibility and care. Happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• 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 ] - INSTALLED!
• User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft – important script that is used to WP:DRAFTIFY articles (move to draft space), including cleanup and author notification. - INSTALLED!
• 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. - INSTALLED!
• User:Headbomb/unreliable – another somewhat useful tool that grades sources using highlight colors – - INSTALLED!
• 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. - INSTALLED!

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

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.