User:Cassiopeia/NPPSchool/Hog Farm

Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. 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 Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

Notability

PART 1

When patrolling or reviewing an article, you may often come across articles do not meet the WP:N guidelines, but the editors make the edits in good faith. Please read WP:AGF and do not WP:BITE the new editors.

A. Notability is a test guidelines to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article in Wikipedia mainspace. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, General Notability Guidelines, Specific Notability Guidelines, Stand-alone list before completing the following tasks.

General notability guidelines

1. In your own words, why it is important to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE new editors.

Answer:

First, we need to encourage new editors to stay on Wikipedia. If we are harsh with new editors, there's a strong chance we'll drive them away. New editors bring new expertise, interests, and skills. Also, given that all editors will only be active on Wikipedia for a finite time, having a flow of new editors keeps Wikipedia going. Being harsh to new editors will drive them away and we won't get those benefits of new editors. Additionally, if a user is judging an article based on notability guidelines, and assumes bad faith, they will not likely take an objective view of the article. Assuming good faith helps keep us objective about the quality of articles.

Y. Do note also many new editors do not know Wikipedia guidelines, policies and the markup language, and mistakes made by new editors usually are not aware by them. Assuming good faith (unless it is a blatantly vandalism page/ edits), and provide assitance and Wikipedia guidelines (links) would help the new editors so they may learn of their mistakes would be great help on their future editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

2. In your own words, how does notability is defined in Wikipedia?

Answer:

Notability is defined as the subject being covered in an in-depth manner in multiple reliable sources not directly associated with the subject of the page. For people and events, this coverage also has to be lasting. Different subjects also have more specific guidelines to help determine if a subject is notable, in addition to the general guideline.

Y. In Wikipedia, notability means "worthy to be noted" - it is defined as a topic is "presumably" notable for stand-alone article or list if (1) it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject whee by the sources talk "directly" about the subject in depth and in length and not only passing mentioned and (2) it is not excluded under the What WP:Wikipedia is not policy. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

3. Does a step by step instructions on how to "Change a car tire" considered a notable topic in Wikipedia?

Answer:

Strictly defined, I would argue that How to change a car tire would pass the general notability guideline, but would run afoul of other policies. There is in-depth coverage in multiple sources not directly associated with the subject matter. This is why we have WP:NOT. The proposed article would be incompatible with WP:NOTHOWTO, and, depending on how exactly the article was written, would be at especial risk for WP:OR issues. This is an example of why we have guidelines in addition to the bare notability one.

Y. It is not a notable topic as it does not pass WP:NOTHOWTO policy. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

4. What are the differences between A WP:GNG and a specific notability guidelines? how do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?

Answer:

Subject-specific notability criteria provide more specific guidelines to help editors assess the notability of articles within certain subjects, while the GNG guideline provides a general approach to notability. Each of the subject-specific notability guidelines gives the criteria for inclusion in that section - for instance, WP:NASTRO has a very detailed list of what is considered to be an astronomical object. The SNGs should be used as a clarifier for the GNG. As an example, I've seen an article deleted at AfD despite a marginal pass of WP:NFOOTY (he played one minute in a qualifying match) due to a wholly comprehensive GNG fail. I would recommend using the appropriate SNG for patrolling an article. A strong pass of the SNG guidelines almost certainly demonstrates notability, but marginal cases (like the above-mentioned soccer player) should be judged by GNG.

Y. Both can be used when patrolling but those subject falls under SNG/SSG (sport specific guidelines) but fails to meet the WP:GNG guidelines would sometimes nominated for deletion WP:AfD for discussion to determine the status of the article; however, SSN does not triump over GNG, but we have many cases a subject passes SSN but not GNG and the article were voted a keep at AfD. (We will cover AfD in later assignment). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Specific notability guidelines

5. If an editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2019 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why?

Answer:

The sports-specific notability guideline and WP:CRYSTAL would both suggest that the article would be notable. The sports-guideline indicates that the Olympic Games would be notable, and WP:CRYSTAL requires that the event be notable (demonstrated by WP:NOLY) and almost certain to occur (much planning for the '24 Olympics had been done by '19). Obviously the article would fail the Wikipedia:Verifiability without sources, but the concept would be notable. The main concern would be if the unsourced information was legitimate knowledge and planning or just personal speculation (in the last case, the bad content would need to be removed). The notability guideline for events would also suggest notability.

N. Even thought we would assume 2024 Summer Olympic will be carrying out as it is only 4/5 years from 2019 and the topic is notable, (we go back to the notability requirement in Q2 here), the article need to have significant coverage of independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not only passing mentioned for verification. To verify the content is very important in Wikipedia so we would know the info is based on the source provided. If you know the subject is notable and lack of sources, as a reviewer/any editor, we can search the sources and add it in to support the content claim and mark the article as review or we would move the page to draft space (will cover this in later assignment). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

B. Without considered of sources/content policies and review just based on "subject specific notability" (SSN) "alone" for sake of the exercises below, please answer if the subject meets the SSN guidelines, based on the given content below, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

6. A New York city based 2019 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.

Answer:

Fail - raised capital notices are considered to be trivial coverage by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Fail - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, capital transactions are not considered to be substantial coverage.

Y. For a "2019 start up" which means the company not even one year old and with only 200K capital, it would only enough for official renovation but not a business fund as such it usually fails WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer:

Pass - The mixed martial arts sections of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states that MMA fighters need to have at least 3 matches in top-tier leagues. The UFC is such a league, and Evloev has more than 3 fights.

Pass - Passes WP:NMMA criteria number one, as WP:MMATIER considers the UFC to be a top-tier MMA organization and Evloev surpasses the minimum number of fights requirement.

N if you look at WP:NMMA section, you need to read either WP:MMATIER or WP:MMABIO, an MMA fighter needs to have at least 3 fights under top tier promotion. As per [1], subject has only 2 top tier fights (vs. Enrique Barzola and Seung Woo Choi at UFC Fight Night 162 and UFC Fight Night 149. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

8. A upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, was reported will be in production in December 2020 and to be released on August 2021 in the cinemas.

Answer:

Fail - has not entered production yet, and would likely not pass the Wikipedia:Notability (films) SNG until its public release unless something makes the production itself notable. Fail per WP:NFF. Has not yet entered principal photography, and depending on the situation, may not be notable until the production has been released (depends on the amount of coverage the production process garners).

Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

9. 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.

Answer:

'Fail per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Has not held an elected office, and has not received substantial coverage. Fail - fails both criteria of WP:NPOL (the local coverage doesn't seem to be enough to meet the standard of "significant press coverage").

Y. To pass WP:NPOL, one needs to be officially elected to state/national position. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer:

Fail - does not appear to meet any of the twelve bullet points at the musicians section of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Fail - Fails all twelve parts of WP:MUSICBIO.

Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

C. Based on which SSN guidelines the below subjects are notable under (1) which notability criteriaMUSICBI#1 (if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations

11. Carlos Alós-Ferrer Answer:

Appears to meet at least three of the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Passes WP:NACADEMIC. To me, it appears he passes subcriteria 1, 4, 5, and 8, but I'm super familiar with some of the terms in higher academic posts.

Y. Subject passes WP:NPROF criteria 1 and 8. Being a professor does not meet WP:NPROF criteria 4 and 5. However the subject meets criteria 1 for WP:NPROF #1 [2] for being highly cited and #8 as the chief editor of Journal of Economic Psychology [3]. For WP:NACADEMIC we often have hard time to find independent reliable sources (IRS) to support the content claimed as scholars are general not the popular, being notable to general public, thus we would use WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NPROF to assess the notability in [of the subject as well as in WP:AfD. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

12. Alistair Overeem

Answer:

Easily passes the MMA section of Wikipedia:Notability (sports), and his ADCC European Championship in the infobox probably demonstrates notability, too. Passes WP:NMMA criteria one, as he has fought more than three fights in a top-tier MMA organization. Also passes WP:NKICK as he won the K-1 world championship.

Y very-well - you spotted he passes 2 different SSN. Many NPPSCHOOL participants dont. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

13. Jennifer Lopez

Answer:

Overwhelmingly meets the criteria for musicians and ensembles at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Passes most of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO (appears to be all but 6 and 9). Also meets WP:ENT criteria number one.

Y. Passes WP:ENT of all three criteria. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

14. Three Mile Island accident

Answer:

Passes Wikipedia:Notability (events) - Subject of in-depth, lasting coverage from a wide geographic scope.

Meets the criteria of WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE.

Y The SSN here is WP:EVENTCRIT - 1, 2. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

15. Persepolis

Answer:

Passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) through passage of WP:GEOLAND by being a former legally recognized populated places and WP:GEOFEAT as having been assigned the status of a feature of cultural heritage and the historical importance of it. Meets WP:GEOLAND #1 (former populated places count) and WP:GEOFEAT #1 as a recognized historically important site.

Y. Populated as a historical city of its civilizations. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Hog Farm. See assignment 1 above. Ping me here if you need to clarify anything. If you make an edit for an answer then pls provide the hist diff (in all assignment). Ping me when you have finished answering the questions. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Got 'em all answered. @CASSIOPEIA:

Hog Farm, My appologies. Kindly read part B and C again which I left out a few details. Pls note some of the subjects do meet more than one "subject specific notability" (SSN). Pls add additional info needed for all question in Part B and C. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Got it fixed like you requested with more specifities. I struck through the old answers, but once I make this edit live, I'll get the hist diff like you requested. Hog Farm (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

[4] hist diff.

Hog Farm, Pls see comments above. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've read through the comments above, and I think I get what I wasn't quite getting. Ready to move on to the next one. Thanks. Hog Farm (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Sources

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for such content claimed 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 and answered the the below questions in your own words.

You could contact WP:RX if you could not find the sources yourself either on web due to Paywall content or printed books.

---

1.

Topic	Explanation	5 Examples	Comment by Cass
Reliable source	A source that is both independent from the subject, reasonably free from bias, with a reputation for accuracy, and publishing provable facts, not opinions. They should either be from peer-reviewed or other sources with editorial oversight or written by a recognized subject-matter expert.	(example)The Guardian newspaper The New York Times The Lancet (premier medical journal) Books by recognized subject-matter experts, like Bruce Catton for the American Civil War The Associated Press The Washington Post - News reporting articles, not blog articles	Y. Reliable source - Third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, reliable editorial judgment where by all majority and significant minority views are present and pursuant to the verifiability policy. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
User generated sources	Source in which the content is produced by individual users with limited editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond that provided by the community.	Discogs (this comes up a lot in music articles) Urban Dictionary Wikipedia itself Ancestry.com YouTube	Y. Utube - We usually will take digital/press source. For video especially from Utube - We need to look at the where the source is from? Is the source come from the site itself or it is taken from other sources and add/change slightly and publish in their own channel which most of the U-tube channels operate in this way. If the sources is from a reliable site such as CNN then we will generally take it as reliable & independent source if the content is about news and not an interview with the subjects or opinions/debating pieces by someone who not the subject matter. Whether a source is reliable or not something it is very hard to identify, when in doubt, we could seek help and opinion from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Non Independent source	A source that is closely related to its subject. These sources often have issues with neutrality and objectivity and may not always publish factual information.	A company's own website (for information on the company or its products) Government-controlled publications in countries without the freedom of the press (some topics) Press releases Official campaign statements by a political candidate's organization Self-published statements by various organizations	Y. Official websites, interviews, home pages etc, company brochures, marketing/advertising pieces, and etc are not independent sources. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

---

2.

Type	Explanation	Sources (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary)	Comment by Cass
Primary	Works produced very close to an event or by figures directly involved with the event. Experimental data results are also primary sources, and when dealing with fiction, the fictional works in which the topic appears are primary. Religious scriptures (The Bible, the Qur'an, etc.)	(example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results The police report of the O. J. Simpson police chase The Lord of the Rings when writing about characters and events from the work. Anne Frank's Diary of a Young Girl The Mueller Report (Yes, I have read that thing) Transcripts of official government legislation The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant An archeaologist's initial excavation report The Declaration of Independence Religious scriptures Nutritional labels on products Military after-action reports Raw polling data (just the numbers) Insurance claim reports Baseball stats Sports schedules Song lyrics (also almost always subject to copyright issues, unless it's a really old song)	Y Very good. Also Scrapbooks, Artifacts, Interviews, Speeches, Poems, Manuscripts and etc. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Secondary	Sources removed from the event or subject that analyze primary sources	(example) newspaper Fox New's analysis of polling data An article unrelated to the research team analyzing the effects of the scientific study Books written about historical events in which the author did not participate Book reviews Commentaries on religious scriptures	Y Well-done CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Tertiary	Sources which collect information from secondary sources in order to provide an overview of the sources, not to provide additional analysis	(example) encyclopedias Wikipedia School textbooks A scientific database listing all known species of snakes and basic information about them. A list of the names of all of the extant New Testament codices (such documents do exist, although many list estimates of dates of the manuscripts and would be secondary sources given the estimates) Some almanacs (not the ones that list all dates of the year by their "fishing quality")	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

3.

Subject	Primary	Secondary	Tertiary	Comment by Cass
Example: Art	Example:Sculpture	Example:Article critiquing the sculpture	Example:Encyclopedic article on the sculptor
History	Robert E. Lee's letters	Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative	Lee's entry in an encyclopedia	Y Good. I can see here you are into politics and American history - check out A History of the American People by Paul Johnson, an English writer. It is a great book.
Science	Raw data from a recently-published experiment	Another scientist's analysis of said data	A freshman-level college biology textbook	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Athletes	George Brett's stats	An ESPN article about Brett's involvement in the Pine Tar Game	Brett's entry the the Baseball Register	Y - guess Brett is the equivalent of Sachin Tendulkar or Don Bradman in cricket. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

4. Please explain in your own words why the content claimed needs to be verified?

Answer: Content claimed needs to be verified so that it can be proved that the content is neutral and accurate. This also ensures that Wikipedia remains a tertiary source and does not analyze material itself.

Y Without verification, any editor can place any info in Wikipedia and we would not no way to verify the info. If a source is included, then we could see if the content claimed is as per source. The reason why independent, reliable source important is that not only we would know if the source is independent from the subject but also is the source is from reputable, fact-checking and accuracy, reliable editorial sites. If I am the one input the info, you would ask - who is the CASSIOPEIA, where can I verify what the user say/info added?.

Also content needs to verifiable not because it is the facts or true - see WP:But it's true!. If source indicated XXX is from Jamaica but the fact that XXX is from Cuba, we put XXX is from Jamaica in article. We will correct the info when the sources (not need to be the same source) correct itself. For example Alexander the Great - How he die is based on which sources you read, from poising, to malaria and typhoid fever to infectious (meningitis) to acute pancreatitis. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

5.Could we used Wikipedia as the source? and why?

Answer: Wikipedia is a user-generated source, and as a result can only be used in a limited, self-referencing (describing what Wikipedia claims itself to be) manner.

Y Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources unless in a very limited way such as hen Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article.06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: One of my primary source examples above, Grant's Personal Memoirs, will work here. Grant's autobiography is generally considered reliable and accurate (although like all autobios, there are a few disputable points). However, since it was written by the subject of the work, it is not independent.

Y The source, Charles L. Webster and Company, published Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant in 1885 is considered an dependent source as it was written by the subject himself, but the company (publication) was in business only 10 years (from 1884 to 1894) for such I am not sure how reliable the company was as reliable source is a third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, reliable editorial judgment where by all majority and significant minority views are present and pursuant to the [[WP:V}verifiability]] policy. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

7.Give an example and explain why a source is independent source but not reliable?

Answer: I recently ran into a source in a GA review that was a blog discussing the Sacred Chickens of Rome (yes, that was a real thing with the ancient Romans). The author was obviously independent from the Roman government and their chickens. However, it was unreliable because the author of the blog is not a recognized subject matter expert and it was a personal website.

Y. :The Sun is an independent source for news but it is not reliable as it is a tabloid news source, thus, it fails to meet WP:RS.

---

Pls indicate "y" for yes or "n" for no or "?" after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n".

8.

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	The source is a major news outlet	CNN is generally considered to be reliable per WP:RSP	The subject and a significant event about him is discussed in-depth and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893	The Huffington Post is not affiliated with Petraus	The reliability of the Huffington Post has not been strongly determined	Petraus is discussed in depth.	✘ No
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012	Not affiliated with the subject	An open wiki, so not reliable	About the subject's father, not the subject	✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005	The source is a major magazine	Vanity Fair is considered to be reliable at WP:RSP	The subject is described in depth and directly	✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html	An interview with the subject, so not independent	Too closely affiliated with the subject in this case, PBS would usually be reliable	Discusses the subject in depth and directly	✘ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html	The source is a major newspaper	The source is considered to be reliable at WP:RSP, and the article predates the "use with caution after this date" date	Discusses the subject directly and in-depth	✔ 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 Few things to note 1. Utube - We usually will take digital/press source. For video especially from Utube - We need to look at the where the source is from? Is the source come from the site itself or it is taken from other sources and add/change slightly and publish in their own channel which most of the U-tube channels operate in this way. Here we have CNN utube channel - so it is considered reliable. 2. Huffpost - Although HuffPost contributors is considered not reliable in WP:RSP but if we look closely, the piece is written by By ANNE FLAHERTY, KIMBERLY DOZIER AND ADAM GOLDMAN from Associated Press. The Associated press is considered reliable source as they sell their news to other news agencies. However, the content is based on many individual opinions, for such I would talk it as not reliable sources. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

9. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: The sources that contribute to GNG demonstrate that Petraus passes WP:NSOLDIER (general) and WP:NPOL (head of the CIA).

Y. Being a CIA director and a United States Army general in is not really a politician per say, but he passes Military history/Notability guide#2 as a U.S Army general as per the content above.(note a person who serves in the military is not a politician and visa versa unless they have held both positions in the said fields above such as Leonidas I, Julius Caesar, Ulysses S. Grant, Napoleon Bonaparte or Dwight D. Eisenhower then they would pass both WP:NPOL and WP:MILNG.). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

10.

Martina Hingis is a Swiss former professional tennis player. She won five Grand Slam singles titles. Hingis was one of the highest-paid female athletes in 2000. She retired in November 2007 after being hampered by a hip injury for several months and testing positive for a metabolite of cocaine during that year's Wimbledon Championships, which led to a two-year suspension from the sport.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.instagram.com/martinahingis80/	Produced by the subject	Social media posts from the subject's official account can be considered reliable primary sources	Just a photo gallery, no in-depth discussion of the subject here	✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-us-open-hingis-20170910-story.html	A major newspaper	News reporting from the LA Times is considered to be reliable per WP:RSP	This source discusses the subject in-depth and directly	✔ Yes
	Not affiliated with the article subject	Fein is a reputable tennis writer	Only one piece of trivia about the subject is included, no real analysis	✘ No
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/21171438/tennis-another-twist-bizarre-career-martina-hingis	The source is a major sports new outlet	ESPN is considered to be reliable	The subject is discussed in-depth	✔ Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/nov/01/tennis	The Guardian is a major international newspaper	The Guardian's news reporting (but not its blogs) is considered to be reliable per WP:RSP	The subject is discussed in-depth	✔ 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 User generated sources such as Instagram, personal website, IMDB, personal twitter, facebook and etc are considered not reliable as the subject provide the info themselves and we could there is not fact checking, accuracy from the third party. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

11. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: The sources that we can use to determine notability demonstrate a pass of WP:NTENNIS through her participation in the main draw of the Grand Slam.

Y subject passes WP:NTENNIS criteria #3(have competed in the main draw in one of the highest-level professional tournaments.) and #6 (won five Grand Slam singles titles) (pls provide the criteria and explanation/justification next time). Full content from the article Martina Hingis would pass all the WP:NTENNIS criteria. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Pls indicate "y" for yes or "n" or "?" for no after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n".

12.

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/	The website is a foundation that appears to be associated with the subject's trust.	The source has enough bias that the factual reliability of some statements can be called into questions.	Wright is discussed directly and in-depth	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302053743/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm	The source is a major news source	Considered to be reliable at WP:RSP	Discusses the subject directly and in-depth	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	The author of the book does not appear to be affiliated with Wright	A Google search of the author suggests he is reliable, and the publisher is reputable.	Wright is discussed directly and in-depth	✔ 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 Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

13. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: The sources that count towards notability indicate a pass of all four parts of WP:ARCHITECT.

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

14.

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/	Likely independent, although you can write your own IMDB entry.	User-generated	Discusses the subject directly and in-depth	✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales	Lennon paid to become a member of this organization, I don't trust it's independence since he paid for membership	Too closely affiliated with the subject.	Lennon is not mentioned on the specific page this links to.	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125	Produced by subject	Not a reliable source per WP:RSP	Dead link, so the subject is not discussed	✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/	Not produced by subject	This page trips all of my red flags for unreliable sources	Not about subject	✘ 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 User generated sources such as Instagram, personal website, IMDB, personal twitter, facebook and etc are considered not reliable as the subject provide the info themselves and we could there is not fact checking, accuracy from the third party. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

15. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: None of the sources are of the quality to produce notability, so neither WP:DIRECTOR or WP:ACTOR are met.

Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

16.

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 affiliated with subject	The Daily Mail has been deprecated	Discusses the subject in-depth	✘ No
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108	The source is produced by the subject's employer	Official page of the team, so would be generally reliable	Discusses the subject directly and in-depth	✘ No
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308	The source is a major newspaper	The source is a major newspaper	Williams is only discussed tangentially	✘ No
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html	The source is a major newspaper	The source is a major newspaper	Williams is directly discussed, but only for part of the article.	✔ 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 As for stats.allblacks.com - I doubt they would lie about the info in the web site as All Blacks is considered the one of the best rugby union teams in the world; however, we also could argue that there they is not third party in fact-checking and accuracy, reliable editorial of the site. Whether a source is reliable or not something it is very hard to identify, when in doubt, we could seek help and opinion from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

17. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: The notability-contributing source demonstrates passage of the first two parts of WP:NRU. Hog Farm (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Y Full article Sonny Bill Williams also passes WP:NBOX. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

18.

Bryan Adams Guadalajara 2006

"Can't Stop This Thing We Started" is a song by Canadian singer and songwriter Bryan Adams. The song was written by Adams and Robert John "Mutt" Lange, and was the second single from Adams' 1991 album Waking Up the Neighbours where by the song was nominated for Grammy Award 1992 "Song of the Year"

Weekly charts

Chart (1991-1992)	Peak position
US Mainstream Rock (Billboard)	2
Denmark (IFPI)	2
US Billboard Hot 100	2

| class="col-break col-break-2" |

End-of-year charts

End-of-year chart (1991)	Position
Canada Top Singles (RPM)	3

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The New York Times article	The source is a major newspaper	The NYT is considered to be reliable	The song's Grammy nom is discussed in-depth	✔ Yes
Billboard Mainstream Rock Chart	The source is the most prominent music charts source in the US	Billboard is considered to be reliable	The song's chart peak is addressed directly	✔ Yes
Top 10 Denmark	? Hard to judge a deadlink	? Can't really judge the quality of a deadlink	? Since the link is dead, I don't know if Adams is addressed or not	? Unknown
Billboard Hot 100 Chart	The source is a major source in the music industry	Billboard is considered to be reliable	The song's chart peak is addressed directly	✔ Yes
RPM	RPM is not affiliated with Adams	RPM is a reliable charts service	The song's peak on the chart is directly addressed	✔ Yes
				? Unknown
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 Note: Sources, Billboard Mainstream Rock Chart, Billboard Hot 100 Chart and RPM, addresses the subject directly but not in dept. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

19. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: Passes WP:NSONG #1, by charting on multiple significant music charts, although this does not always indicate notability. Does not pass WP:NSONG #2, as it was only nominated and did not win. Since WP:NSONG is not 100% conclusive here, I'm going to have to cop out and say WP:GNG pass.

Y, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

20.

Kamlesh Bhatt is a Solution Architect and a DevOps Engineer living in Singapore. I am a fan of technology, music, and entrepreneurship. He is interested in photography and travel. He could be reached at his blog and youtube channel.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://medium.com/@kamleshbhatt_	Produced by subject	Not reliable per WP:RSP	Discusses the subject in-depth	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kamlesh-bhatt-45392961/	Produced by subject	Linkedin is not reliable per WP:RSP	Discusses the subject directly and in-depth.	✘ 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. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

21. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: Fails all parts of WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARCHITECT. I'd consider this one to be a WP:A7 candidate. None of these sources can be used to produce any claim to notability.

Y Solution Architect is not building architect but a position in IT company such as in IBM where we could find positions such as network architecture, infrastructure architect and etc in such company. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Hog Farm, See assignment 2 above. Let me know if you need any assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA This one's done here. Thanks. Hog Farm (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Greetings. I believe you missed Q16 & A17. Once it is finished, pls ping me. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, that's embarassing. Hog Farm (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I got the last of it done, sorry I missed it (I think I started on 16, but forgot I didn't finish it and didn't go back). Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, See comments above and pls answer Q1 "Explanation" section. Once it is done, pls ping me. If you have any question, kindly raise them. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Fixed, I'd had the answers in, but I'd gotten my table columns mixed up and had the examples and the explanations in the same column. Hog Farm (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Done reviewed. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:21, 19 February 2020 (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:The title should be changed to "Hannibal", since reliable sources refer to the subject by the mononym and Hannibal appears to be the primary topic - add a hatnote to a dab page at the top to distinguish from other Hannibals per WP:COMMONNAME, although "Hannibal (general)" would also be acceptable per WP:PARENDIS.

Y. Very well, you tackled two points here - need to change the article name as per WP:COMMONNAME and a redirect. Even though his name is Hannibal Barca, the article title is just taken his first name "Hannibal" as it is most common name which many sources have addressed him - We often heard the phrase "Hannibal Brought Rome To Its Knees". This also apply to subjects known by they nick names - Roman emperor Caligula whose name is Gaius Caesar or a special way of addressing a subject such as Alexander the Great and not "just Alexander" or "Alexander III of Macedon", Catherine the Great and not Catherine II or Princess Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst, Suleiman the Magnificent and not Suleiman I and etc. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

2. Article name "Magic Johnson". Does the article name need to be change? and Why?(please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is an American retired professional basketball player and former president of basketball operations of the Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He played point guard for the Lakers for 13 seasons.

References

Answer: The name is acceptable per WP:COMMONNAME. Johnson is referred to in reliable sources as "Magic", not "Earvin", so the article title is correct.

Y. Same as professional wrestler CM Punk, whose real name is Phillip Jack Brooks and Hulk Hogan, whose real name is Terry Gene Bollea, a former Kickboxer and MMA fighter Mirko Cro Cop, who is a Croatian and his real name is Mirko Filipović. His nickname, Cro Cop, short for "Croatian Cop", comes from his membership in the Lučko Anti-Terrorist Unit, Croatia's elite Police Special Forces tactical unit. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Biographies of living persons

Please read WP:BLP and answer the questions below.

3. As per the texts below, pls explain the if the content is acceptable of inclusive 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 first paragraph is acceptable, as a neutral and accurate lead. The second paragraph is cited with multiple reliable sources, and is the proper tone (stating that he has been charged, not that he committed the crime) per WP:WELLKNOWN. The final paragraph is unacceptable per WP:V, WP:WELLKNOWN, and WP:BLPNAME.

Y Good. As per WP:BLP, the assault incident can be included as multiple independent, reliable sources supported the claimed. However, as per WP:GOSSIP, WP:GRAPEVINE info on the child should be immediately removed as it is not backed by any sources for the content is considered contentious material. In the biographies of living persons it's crucial to provide only information available in multiple independent reliable sources. Such information has to be neutral and should exclude original research. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

4. As per the texts below, pls explain the if the content is acceptable of inclusive 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: The inclusion of the subject's address and phone number is unacceptable per WP:BLPPRIVACY and should be quietly removed and reported to oversighters for possible REVDELing. The rest should be acceptable per WP:WELLKNOWN, although if this is all that's in the article, describing the subject as an author, journalist, or motivational speaker would need a citation to pass WP:V.

Y Good. By the way, the address and tel belong to the White House. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Images copyright

Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. Please answer the questions below and (1) with 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 use in Wikipedia? and Why.

Answer- Explanation: I'm getting an error message for the exact URL that just sends me to the website homepage, but the context suggests that it would probably be acceptable for use on Wikipedia.

Y. I would access to the URL - https://www.defense.gov/observe/photo-gallery/igphoto/2002198889/. It is US department of Defense site. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Images produced by the US government or US government employees as part of their official duties are considered to be in the public domain per Wikipedia:Public_domain#US_government_works.

Y. We can use any images/text info from Public Domain (PD) sites. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer- Explanation: Yes, use of this image would be acceptable.

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: The website states that the images are all in the public domain, and according to the website's listing in WP:PDI, this classification as public domain can be relied upon.

Y. We "always" check the original source. Here we have "This image was acquired from Flickr. It was marked as Public Domain or CC0 and is free to use. To verify, go to the source and check the information there." So if we click on Flickr and it will lead us to here, it is a PD which beautiful snowy mountain image was uploaded by Mike Goad. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer- Explanation: Use of this image would be acceptable.

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: [[5]] indicates that the license it is licensed under allows for such use.

Y. Again if we check the original source (under Summary section) - (https://pixabay.com/photos/snow-leopard-snow-leopards-predators-76472) and on the right site box it stated "Pixabay License Free for commercial use No attribution required". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer- Explanation: No. Use of this

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Fails WP:IMAGERES - Too high of resolution. Fails WP:NFCI #8, as the image would likely only be used for decorative purposes, as it is not the key resembler of any set style. Especially, use of the image of a commercial sculpture would fail the example at WP:NFCI#UUI #12 and #16.

Y well-done. One of the ways we could check it to download the image to our computer and use Tineye] where you might able to find some reverse images on the internet. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Neutral point of view

P;lease read WP:NPOV and MOS:PUFF. Point out the WP:NPOV words/phrases and rewrite the paragraph on Question 9 & 10 from a neutral point of view.

9. 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: POV phrases - "brilliant", "rare and exceptional beauty," "destroyed", "talent and marketability made her a fighter to watch right out the gate."

Rewrite - She is a boxer, who turned pro at the age of 19 after winning one amateur fight. In this fight, which occurred on December 14, 2013, she defeated her opponent in 20 seconds. She fought under XXX promotion on her next fight in February 2014.

Y. You have good understand of how to a WP:NPOV content should be written in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

10. 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:

POV phrases: "popular, acclaimed" (we'd need a citation to prove that RS consider him to be acclaimed), "who loves by all who watched his films", "tender, innocent."

Rewrite - He is a Bulgarian actor. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry at the age of 14. He has featured in 44 films.

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

11. 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:Just because content is verifiable doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion. Inserting extreme minority viewpoints or trivial negative details in a BLP can hijack the article. Giving extremely minor viewpoints equal weight in an article reduces neutrality and factual accuracy and should be avoided.

Y. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not to persuade.Take Capital punishment article for example - it provides a balance and due weight content, representing all mainstream points of view in reliable sources. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

No original research

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

12. In your own words, why Wikipedia is not a platform to publish original research?

Answer:For one thing, it falls against Wikipedia's stated purpose - to build an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and tertiary sources build off of secondary sources. The original research is a primary source, and it would have to be discussed in a secondary source before an encyclopedia could pick it up. Also, original research fails WP:RS as the content has no editorial oversight.

Y. If the content is derived from original research we would no way to "verify" it as the info is from the primary source which deems not reliable and not independent. Content needs to verifiable so we may know where the info/source from, if the source is independent and/or reliable, and not because it is the facts or true - see WP:But it's true!. If source indicated XXX is from Jamaica but the fact XXX is from Cuba, we put XXX is from Jamaica in article as per source. We will correct the info when the sources (not need to be the same source) correct itself. For example Alexander the Great - How he die is based on which sources you read, from poising, to malaria and typhoid fever to infectious (meningitis) to acute pancreatitis and etc. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

13. 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: As an editor, it is not appropriate to insert your own original research or opinions. However, it is appropriate to insert the original research of others (if the guidelines for using primary sources are followed) and the opinions of subject-matter important figures can be included if properly attributed so that it's clear that the opinion is the opinion of the cited figure. For instance, Tucker Carlson's opinions on matters of US politics can be included, but only if attributed to Tucker Carlson.

Y. Strictly speaking original search/primary source is not reliable. We would use primary source sparingly in an article at times for BLP as the supplement sources of the subject but they can not be used to demonstrate the notability of the subject. If the info is challenged by editor, then the content can be removed.

Example such as direct quote - we can verbatim text and copy it to the article with source by either (1) put in a direct quote format - Cquote, Quote and etc in Wikipedia (2) write in a manner that the info is taken from xxx(source/person) such as ' Mr. John Smiths stated that "xxxxxxxxx.....'" and provide the source. (3) WP:Public Domain We can copy and paste exact text/image words/phrases/ paragraph from public domain sites such as United States Constitution or Declaration of Independence of United States (4) we can also copy any texts/image as long as the sites of the sources indicates any form of "irrevocably agree to release their copyright under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the WP:GFDL -"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." clauses. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

14. See this video. Write the content in the in an article by using the video info as the source.

Answer:

(Disclaimer: I have absolutely no idea who this figure is, but he seems to be a leader to some degree in Islam, so he is probably a subject matter expert on Islamic law).

According to, (Insert title and name I don't remember), Islamic law requires clothing for below the waist to be loose, not see through, and to cover the private areas. (and a citation would be inserted here).

According to Sh. Shady Alsulieman, Islamic law requires clothing to be loose or baggy, not see through, not of such a color as to attract attention to the clothing, and to cover the wearer's private areas.

Y Either by direct quote (use sparingly) as below or paraphrase it in your own words.

“ Islam demands Islam commands us with our with regards of our clothing for both men and women, our clothing must be first of all baggy, so must be loose with a men or women. It must non see-through whether men or women. It must non colorful attractive that means when someone walks everyone's looking at them. ”

References

---

Verifiability

Please read WP:V and answer the questions below

15. If the subject has two sons and it is supported by three independent, reliable sources but in reality he has 3 sons. Could we change the content from "2" sons to "3 sons"? and why?

Answer: WP:V requires us to use the information provided by reliable, independent sources, so we would have to stick with the figure of two sons in that case. The figure of three, although accurate, is not supported by reliable sources, so we would have to stick with the other figure in this case.

Y. Wikipedia is NOT about the true, but about what is able to be verifiable by independent, reliable source. - See WP:But it's true. We correct the content when the source corrected itself (same source or other sources). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Hog Farm see Assignment 3 above. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Can I get a couple more days on this one? I had some stuff come up in my real life, and wasn't able to get to this one as quickly as possible. Will get finished in the next couple days. Hog Farm (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm No worries. Get back to it when you are ready and attend to what you needed which is more important to you. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA All answers completed. I'm not 100% for sure I understood exactly what you meant by #14, so if I did it wrong, I can go back a redo it. Hog Farm (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm Q14 - Write the content in the in an article by using the video info as the source. Hope this help. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - Oh, so like actually insert the content from the video in an article? Hog Farm (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm We usually use digital or press text content as the source (such as newspapers or content from web); In this case we use the video as the source. So if we going to write a content based on the source - how would the content looks like in Wikipedia page? (Write the content in Q14 base on the info from the video). We are looking for WP:NPOV here. Does this help? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, got #14 CASSIOPEIA. Here's the diff of my revision like you requested in the instructions: [6]. Hog Farm (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: - Just making sure the last ping worked. Hog Farm (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, see comments above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready for next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ready for the next one, CASSIOPEIA. Hog Farm (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion

PART 2

We have looked at the requirements needed for a page to meet notable, policy and type of sources 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. Pls set up your CSD log by installing MYCSD so I could review your CSD nomination. 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 computer and and install Earwig Copyvio Detector script. (The "copyvio" will appear on the left panel under "Tools" section on every page in Wikipedia.
3. Install CV-revdel and after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

• • Done all three

General criteria

1. Please (G1-G14) at General and answer the following questions in your own words.

No	Criterion	Application	Comment by Cass
1	G1	For patent nonsense, which is strictly defined as content that is incomprehensible.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
2	G2	Test pages - usually pages marked as test in either the content or the edit summary.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
3	G3	Vandalism and hoaxes. However, subtle hoaxes should be taken to AfD.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
4	G4	Content that is "substantially similar" to content that was previously deleted in a deletion discussion.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
5	G5	Content created in violation of a ban or block - only content created after the sanctions apply (this is usually through a sock)	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
6	G6	Uncontroversial housekeeping - things such as redirects in the way of page moves, deleting templates after TfD, etc.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
7	G7	The author and only substantial contributor requests deletion in good-faith or blanks the page.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
8	G8	Pages that depend on a page that no longer exists - Talk pages of deleted pages, subpages with no parent page, etc.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
9	G9	Decisions by the Wikimedia Foundation office.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
10	G10	Pages that only serve the purpose of attacking the subject	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
11	G11	Unambiguous spam	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
12	G12	Blatant copyright violations, in which simply removing the violations would leave basically nothing left. Also, all versions of the page need to qualify (revisions can be deleted through revdel).	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
13	G13	Drafts that have not been edited by a human in six months.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
14	G14	Disambiguation pages that don't disambiguate anything.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Article and R2 criteria

1. Please (A1-G11) criteria at WP:CSD#List of criteria and answer the following questions in your own words.

No	Criterion	Application	Comment by Cass
1	A1	Articles without enough context to tell what it's talking about.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
2	A2	Non-English article present somewhere else on the Wikimedia.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
3	A3	Articles with no substantive content - only links, tags, images, etc.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
4	A5	Articles that have completed the transwiki process	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
5	A7	Articles about people, bands, clubs, individual animals, organizations, websites, or events that do not signify why the subject is significant in a credible manner.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
6	A9	Articles about musical recordings that do not signify importance and where the musician does not have an article.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
7	A10	Recently created articles that duplicate content existing in another article.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
8	A11	Articles about subjects that are obviously the products of the article creator, and do not indicate significance.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
9	R2	Cross-namespace redirects that do not go to the template, category, wikipedia, help, or portal namespaces.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

---

3. Pls 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). Pls provide the article names and hist diffs and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i: Design Cafe

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Terrell on Advertising

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: Law Payne

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: Malovec-Studios I.N.C

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer v: History of Hair Metal Music

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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

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

Answer:

A page is nominated for G12 when removing the copyright violations would leave nothing worth saving and consist of the page's entire history. REVDEL is used when the page is savable: content other than the COPYVIOS exists, and the page history is not completely ruined.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

4. What constitute copyright infringement/violation.

Answer:

A copyright violation is the use of another's copyrighted intellectual work without permission. Copyright violations do not have to be exact matches of the work, very close, but slightly different reproductions can also be copyright violations. It's like trespassing or theft, but with intellectual property instead of physical property.

Y. It also apply to images/photos/songs and etc. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Why some of the texts found in an article are identical as per its sources and yet they are not considered copyright violation? Please provide three examples.

Answer i: Properly cited direct quotes.

Y. very good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: The article uses material from sources within the public domain

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: Materials that have gone through the formal donation process

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

6. Why copyright violation needs to be stamped out from Wikipedia and who determined when a violation is lawfully taking place?

Answer: This conduct is illegal, and infringes upon the rights of others. There are times when what looks like a violation is lawfully taking places - use of public domain materials, etc. When in doubt, go through the copyright violation revdel request, and an administrator can delete the infringing revisions.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

---

7. Pls 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: Kodava cuisine

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Baron Raymonde

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: Voon Lee Shan

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: St.Stephens Orthodox Cathedral kudassanad

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer v: Gaulstown, County Westmeath (Later recreated in a proper way, but the copyright violation version was speedily deleted)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

---

8. Pls provide 5 successful CSD in any criteria except WP:G11, WP:G12 and WP:G13 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i: List of German exonyms for places in Italy - G4

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Ronald Reagam - R3

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: Joey Daser - G4

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: Afghanai (disambiguation) - G14

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer v: Angelina Green - G4

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

---

9. Pls read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT. Please explain when to a new page can nominated CSD R2 and what should be considered when doing such move?

Answer: Sometimes, newly created articles are produced about subjects that would warrant an article, but are far from being ready for the articlespace. These articles can be moved to the draftspace and the remaining CNR nominated for R2. However, reviewers moving pages to the draftspace should make sure at least an hour has elapsed since the last major edit to the article, to make sure the article is in its complete state.

Y one thing to make sure is that the article has no sources provided. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

---

10. Pls read and A1-A11 and R2 at WP:CSD and and provide 5 successful "Article CSD" articles (with at least two of them are CSD A7) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY").Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i: Present NFL season - A10

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Gabriel Finch - A7

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: Omar Alaa Mubarak - A7 (Deleted per A7 as requested, later recreated, so it may be a bluelink if it hasn't been redeleted by the time you see this.)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: Khai Dreams - A7 (musician)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer v: ಕಹಳೆ - A2

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Copyright violation and paid editors

Pls read WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question

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

Answer: There are certain red flags to this. The greatest of which is first-person pronouns, article written including "I" and "we" are almost certainly either COI/PAIDs or copied and pasted off a website somewhere. Long-winded sections of puffery or promotion on an organization or person's page are red flags for this. Also, sometimes editors give away COIs in the edit summaries. Other COI or paid editors will be kind enough to identify themselves as such on the talk page.

Y. Self-disclosure by COI/PAID editors is one of the many ways we find out that they are COI/PAID. The different between a COI say an COI editor write about themselves, or friends is that written prose is not that perfect as compared that to a professional writers' (PAID editor). Secondly, if the article is about a company, the prose of the article is written more like a businesslike (business writing). Thirdly, professional paid editor would provide neat citations and only take one or 2 edits to create the article. In addition, professional PAID editors would create multiple different companies article that normal COI editors would not. Do note PAID is a subset of COI and an COI would also a PAID editor such as a small business owner write about their company or a rapper write about their own article in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer:

The user should first get a message on their talk page linking to the project pages about editing with a COI. If it's a new editor, giving them the welcome message with the Five Pillars of Wikipedia might be helpful. The article/user should noted on the COI noticeboard. The nature of the article might determine what needs to be done with it. Blatant spam can be G11'd, and autobiographies that demonstrate no credible claim to importance can be A7'd. If it looks like the subject might be notable, it might be helpful to see if an unrelated user would be interested in improving the article if it was temporarily moved to draftspace.

Y.and tag COI on the page via twinkle. Some admin would agree (some dont) that page to move the page to draft space regardless how many edits and how many pages the editors have been created. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer:First, the user should get a message on their talk page pointing them to the paid editor guidelines. WP:PAID states that the article can be taken to either the administrator's noticeboard for incidents or the COI noticeboard. Personally, I feel like the COI noticeboard would be the better target, it would only be drastic enough to take it to ANI if this is a long-term problem. Then, the article should be checked to see if it meets any of the CSD, and if not, either moved to the draftspace to see if an unrelated editor wants to improve it, or sent through the deletion process (AfD probably better than PROD here).

Y.All paid new article in irregardless how many articles the PAID editors have created and even if the comply "all" Wikipedia guideline, we "must" move the page to draft space for review first then once the draft article is accepted then it will be reviewed the second time in new page.

---

Hog Farm See Part 2 - Assignment 4 above. Assignment 4 and 5 are the hardest assignment in the program. Do read through CSD carefully as high successful CSD rate is requirement to pass the program. Please set up your CSD log, add CVredel, install Earwig copyvio check and bookmark the URL as well. Let me know if you need any help. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - I've had a CSD log setup with Twinkle for awhile at User:Hog Farm/CSD log. Is this sufficient? Hog Farm (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm - This is your CSD log - and it is good. Make sure you also install CVredel, install Earwig copyvio check and bookmark the URL as well. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Hi This is Not a G2. G2 is a test page but this article is about WP:Redirect. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - The very first edit was something about "this is a test page/edit", so I gave it a try. I forgot about the whole all-revisions-of-the-page must apply thing. Hog Farm (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, OK and thank. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Pls remember to provide hist diffs for all nominations or edits you made on your answers. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - Do you want me to add the hist diff of the nomination when I make it? I obviously don't have access to the hist diffs after the article is deleted. This one will probably take me a while, just to get all of the nominations as well as completing the reading/questions sections. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, You can find them in your contribution log. I am not sure it will stay on your contribution log if the article is deleted. I will chekk them on public log then. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Good day I am here to inform you that I have changed my user name to sentence case. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia - I've gotten everything in this assignment completed, including all nominations. Hog Farm (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Reviewed. Well-done. See Notes below for further info. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Notes:

G11 (promo) - What constitute a G11? At times it is hard to define. Although if a article is blantly promote or adverstise about the subject then it is a G11. Sometimes, the it is a little subtle and that would be a judgement call. As a rule of thumb, if article about an entertainers (actor/singer/DJ/artist and etc) in dept of how hard they work, how motivated they are, using all the puffery/flowery languagues and especially the subject does not meet notability guidelines. For a corporation, we would see they list down all they product/services, their directors/key person in the company, they mission, their client, they are the influencer in their industrial, all the words/phrased to enhance/market the company and no substantial info that is supported by independent reliable sources.

G12 (copyvio) -

Copyright violation addresses the use of original expression without permission of the holder which is a violation of laws even the credit is given to the source. For articles, the Copyright Law gives the copyright protection to the “original works of authorship fixed in in a tangible medium of expression” in the newspaper, magazine and freelance article at the moment of their creation, for the life of the creator plus 70 years after, and 95 years for corporation publication or 120 years from date of creation, whichever is shorter.

A “fact” is not considered an original work of authorship; but how the ways facts are recorded where the style of the writing, choice and/or arrangement of words are copyrightable. An infringement of copyright is committed when a person uses the “exact words /almost exact words in a consecutive manner” of the author/holder. To note, as a guideline, a few words copies from the original works and an idea of expression such as "weather the storm", 'crossing the Rubicon" "as dead as a doornail" and etc. proper nouns, document/event/treaty/person/title/ names are generally acceptable and so is a direct quote of speech. However, any longer phrases which would be expression in a number of ways are copyright protected. To use one of two short sentences on a large article generally is ok but it will considered infringement if the edit entry is consists of big percentage of the original work and yet for some (such as newspaper/press/journalism that takes their work very seriously - anything more than 4 exact consecutively words would considered copyvio). To avoid copyright infringement, one needs uses his/her own words to convey the source’s information. Paraphrasing could minimise the the copyright violation; however, "threshold" ultimately, court judgement would determined the if copyright violation has been made.

Copyvio for texts or images shared the same notion that it is not a copyvio if the verbatim texts or images are taken from free licence and Public domain sites/specific page/image. I have indicated to you on Assignement 3 - section 3.3 - Q5, Q6, Q7 that always check the "original source" even if in WikiCommon the editor who upload the image claim taken from a PD site, we need to check the link provided and if the site indicate the image taken from another source, then we check the source. For texts, we need to check the sites if it is a PD, sometimes the disclaimer of PD is not on the page, but on the home page or "about" page or FAQ page. Secondly, for older article (no in NPP Feed), any copyvio texts found, we will revdel it as it is almost always it is not the first versions. If a small amount of verbatim texts found in NPP Feed articles, we would revdel them; but large amount of verbatim texts we will tag G12.

Lastly, here are a few examples where the German car maker Audi was sued for copyright breach.

1. Audi infringed copyright violation over Eminem’s song “Lose Yourself” in their commercial advertising. [7]

2. Audi was fined US $ 965,000 over copyright infringement for using 10 words from Brian Andreas’s story of “Angel of Mercy” - [8]

I think I just had a wake-up call, and it was disguised as a car, and it was screaming at me not to get too comfortable and fall asleep and miss my life. (Audi commercial) Some people don’t know that there are angels whose only job is to make sure you don’t get too comfortable & fall asleep & miss your life.(Brian Andreas’ print)

Hope the above help. Note the above doest not substitute the Wikipedia links I provided above. Please make sure you read the reading material as well. Thanks. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Spot COI / PAID COI editors are permitted to edit Wikipedia and create on the affected articles; however, it is "HIGHLY DISCOURAGE/NOT RECOMMENDED as it is very difficult for the COI editors to write the article/input info into the affected article in [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view}}.

1.Use person pronouns and possessives (I, we, my, our) 2.Multiple references to company, financial listings, staff lists, interviews, own publication, press release, blog and with clean references 3.Well written prose 'too perfect to be true' and only with single/2 edits 4.Editors have created multiple company related articles 5.Editors disclosed their COI/PAID in their userpage (not tag with COI disclose), or disclosure when they ask question in WP:Teahouse, WP:Help Desk, WP:AFCHD or receivers' talk pages.

---

Filtering - Deletion policy & other alternatives

In assignment 4, we look at articles which fits in WP:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) where by 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 where they are applied.)

1. Under what circumstances do we propose deletion (PROD) a page and why do we do that?

Answer: PROD is meant for pages and files that don't quite meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but whose deletion would be considered uncontroversial. For PROD, a WP:BEFORE search should be conducted to make sure that the subject really is non-notable, not just a badly-written page. PROD is also only usable for articles that have not been PRODed before, have not been discussed at AFD at any point, and have not been undeleted. Deletion discussions can be costly in editor time, so PROD is designed to have a means for uncontroversial deletions without creating a deletion discussion.

Y.Note: we can only PROD once if it is uncontroversial deletion, if the tag is removed in regardless of what the reason is, we cant do PROD again instead we could go through AfD. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: A WP:BEFORE search should be conducted to ensure that the subject is truly non-notable, and that it isn't just a badly written page on a notable subject. If it is thought that the deletion could be controversial, go the AFD route instead. Additionally, the page history should be checked to make sure the bad version of the page isn't a vandalism or spam hijack and to make sure that the article meets the PROD qualifiers listed in the question above.

Y. Note: If you would find independent, reliable sources to support the article then please add them in so the article would meet the notability guidelines so other editor would not need to do the WP:BEFORE again. Cassiopeia^(talk)

3. What is the criteria when nominated a BLPPROD? If we choose not to BLPPROD a page what are the alternatives? (give three examples with explanations)

Answer: The criteria for BLPPROD is that the article is about a living person, and that the page contains no references of any form. If the BLPPROD route is not chosen, there are several options. If the article is eligible for standard PROD, that route can be used. Additionally, the article can be taken to AFD for a full deletion discussion. In special circumstances, such as a figure that is clearly notable, but the article is not fully compliant with WP:BLP due to insufficiency of references, the page can be draftified.

Y. Please note when doing R2 (draftiness), make sure the article has not source but potential to meet notability guidlines and use R2 sparingly and it is not the route to substitute AfD or improving the article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: AFD is for articles that likely do not meet the guidelines for articles (WP:GNG, WP:NEO, etc.) but whose deletion may be controversial. A WP:BEFORE search should be conducted, as notability is judged on the existence of sources, not on the state of the article. If the WP:BEFORE search indicates that even with full source usage, the article won't meet policy, then it should be listed at AFD. There's a manual process for the listing, but it's much easier with Twinkle.

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Seven days for PROD or BLPPROD (unless declined). For AfD, the basic time frame is seven days, although WP:SNOW deletes can go quicker, and AfDs are often relisted if the consensus isn't clear, so AfDs can sometimes last a few weeks.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

6. When a page has been previously BLPROD and was provide a source; however if you still think that article should be deleted, what can you do?

Answer: If after a WP:BEFORE search, notability still doesn't show up, nominate the article for WP:AFD.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

7. When do we decide whether an article should be PROD or WP:BLPROD or WP:AFD?

Answer: PROD is for uncontroversial deletions that meet certain criteria, if the criteria are not met, or the deletion is viewed to be possibly controversial, PROD is not the right call, and AFD is better. BLPROD has very strict criteria, if those criteria are met, then BLPROD can be used. If a deletion is potentially controversial, then AFD should be the route used.

Y. BLPROD is about a living person article without source and it can be PROD even BlPROD was tagged and removed if nominator thins it is uncontroversial deletion. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer:If an article does not meet the notability requirements, but has good content (reliably sourced), and the article content would make a valid section in another article, it can be merged. WP:PAGEDECIDE allows a decent amount of space for editor consensus for a merge. For instance, if content is only really understood in the context of another article, it may be best to merge.

Y. The reasons could be

(1) Overlap: Related and huge overlap content from pages.

(2) Short text and Context : A short page and most likely could not be expanded in the near future can be merge with a page on a broader topic or If a short article requires context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.

(3) Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope.

(4) Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For example, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>" article (and can be merged there); see also Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).

Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

9. List 10 reasons we purpose WP:REDIR.

Answer:

1. 1. From alternate names
2. 2. Shortcuts in the project namespace
3. 3. Reasonably common misspellings
4. 4. To sections of articles
5. 5. Items that fail WP:GNG but are noteworthy enough to be mentioned in another article
6. 6. Dialectical spelling differences: Labor/Labour, for example
7. 7. Plurals
8. 8. Synonyms
9. 9. Obsolete former names that might still be encountered in sources
10. 10. Special characters such as ú or Ö that might be replaced with standard characters in searches

Y Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

10. When article can be moved to draft space?

Answer:If a page appears to have been created by a COI or paid editor, it should be moved to draftspace. Otherwise, articles can be moved to draftspace when the article subject appears to have some merit, the article is far from meeting the relevant article standards, and the article is not undergoing active improvement (like with CSD, give it awhile after creation before draftifying).

N. R2 (moved to draft space) if (1) the article is potential and without source (do it sparingly as R2 is not a substitute for AfD) and (2) when a page is recreated by WP:PAID editor irregardless how many articles the paid editors have been created or the paid editor has a self petrol right, we must move the article to draft space. Pls tag the page with PAID, send PAID message to the editor talk page and make sure COI declaration is placed on user talk page and article talk page by the paid editor. When a draft page is accepted by AfC reverie then the page will be placed on NPP new page. When a NPP reviewer has reviewed the page, then it will be on Wikipedia main space and Google search will index the page within a day or two. If the AfC reviewer has also the NPP reviewer right then the page is place on the Wikipedia main space directly. (AfC and NPP review share the same guidelines but the review procedures and how they are apply is a little different). Do read about WP:R2 and how to request an article for R2. Cassiopeia^(talk)

11. Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanation of your nomination.

Answer 1: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Metroid - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Only coverage I could find was either in unreliable sources like fan wikis or in articles like "top 10 cheats on how to beat the Queen Metroid".

Y it was redirect. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irony Bribe Article was about a WP:NEOLOGISM that a WP:BEFORE indicated was only used in one article, and had no to little widespread usage.

Y.05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Jacob Collier - Redundant content fork of content best handled at already existing pages.

Y. Do check if a list is a fork from an article or would be merge to an associated page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devin Ross (2nd nomination) - Fails the SNG WP:NGRIDIRON by not playing in an actual NFL game. Coverage was mostly in unreliable sources or of a nature such as transactions and signing to his college team that fail WP:GNG.

Y.05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 5: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernoulli-Doppler-Leidenfrost-Peltzman-Sabir-Whorf-Dunning-Kruger-Stroop effect - Fails WP:GNG and may be a joke.

N. Deleted under G12 (copyvio). Important: First thing when we review an article is to check if the article meet CSD criteria especially (1) is the article is in violate copyright (2) is the article a promotion piece. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

12. Participate in 5 WP:AFD where by you are the first voter of the discussion. Please provide you reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.

Answer 1: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Patterson (American football) - Voted to delete. Comprehensive GNG fail and also failed the American football SNG diff of !vote

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics Post - WYU - No clear claim to significance, and the subject appears to be referring to a Facebook page, of which reliable secondary sources don't exist. diff of !vote

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Thompson (politician) - Failure of GNG and the WP:NPOL SNG. diff of !vote

Y. Admin Bearcat is very good in WP:NPOL at AfD, we all could learn from them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassau Junction, Missouri - Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND diff of !vote

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 5: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 NFL Draft - WP:TOOSOON. The only thing set about this event is the location. The dates aren't even known yet, there's just too little known about this event to be able to write a non-WP:OR article on this subject. dif of !vote

Y even the decision was redirect and I would not see the article as they have no source to support the claim to me it it should be deleted.

13. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons.

Answer 1: Wallis Lane - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND by a very large margin, could have possibly been a speedy, but a WP:BEFORE search turned up a slight claim to importance, but not near notability standards.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2:Kindergarten Forest Hill in Bellingham Green - Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Almost no kindergarten-only schools are notable.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

14. Nominate 2 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons.

Answer 1: Leszek A Gasieniec - Newly created biography of a living professor, with no citations provided. Article was a microstub and the person may not meet WP:NACADEMIC, so went for PROD instead of draftification.

Y (1) The version of Leszek A Gasieniec when you BLPROD was correct but now they tag was removed and sources are added. (do provide the hist diff of your PORD/BLPROD or etc (everything) next time) Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Beili Liu - Living person, claim to significance, no references or external links provided.

(2) The version of Beili Liuhen you BLPROD was correct but now they tag was removed and sources are added. (do provide the hist diff of your PORD/BLPROD or etc (everything) next time) Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

15.Nominate 2 article for WP:NPPDRAFT and state your reasons.

Answer 1: Frank Kmet moved to Draft:Frank Kmet. Article about a living person with one source (not eligible for BLP PROD), but overall insufficient sourcing. Moved to draftspace to allow for additional citations to be provided and creator notified on their user talk page.

N (the is a source and it is not a R2) when doing R2 (draftiness), make sure the article has not source but potential to meet notability guidlines and use R2 sparingly and it is not the route to substitute AfD or improving the article. You did a move to draft instead of R2. A move is can be done by any confirmed editor but a R2 is request (tag) and if admin deem the R2 is met then the admin will move the page to draft page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: You and Me (2011 film) moved to Draft:You and Me (2011 film). Unsourced article about a film. I don't read Iranian, so I couldn't determine if the article would be notable or not. Anyway, since it had no references, it wasn't ready for the mainspace, so moved to draftspace.

Y you done a move instead of R2. See notes section. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: List of Telugu film actresses - diff of nomination @Cassiopeia: - Did I do that right? Hog Farm (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is right but you need to tag R2 on the page- see template here [9]. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Y The tag was removed by creater but you did it right. I will take that. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: ETO - SZESE Győr FKC - diff of nomination. Hopefully this one doesn't get removed by the page creator like the Telugu film actresses one did.

Y The tag was removed by creater but you did it right. I will take that. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Hog Farm See Assignment 5 above. Assignment 4 & 5 are the hardest assignments and after this, the rest of the assignment would be a lot easier besides the final exam. Let me know if you need any help. Stay safe. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: - I've answered all of these. Hog Farm (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm Thank you for informing. Give me a day or two to review them. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm Pls see the review above and kindly do 2 more R2 (Q15 - last question) and see the notes sections below. Let me know if you have any questions and ping me when you have done R2 exerices. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm greetings, Havent seen you work on the exercises, do you need any help? Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: - I'm confused by what exactly you mean for R2. The R2 I'm familiar with is a speedy deletion process for cross-namespace redirects. I don't think I quite understand what exactly the question is asking. Hog Farm (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm R2 is a cross-namesake move - same as move function via twinckle but the different is that move via R2 required admin approval after nomination (tag) from editor, while move via Twinckle could be done by any confirmed editors. R2 is required since it is a move to draft space, so it it is approval by admin then it would be more appropriate for a reviewer to do so. Pls not when tag R2, the new page is a is tot tally unsourced artificial (no external links, further readings info as well) , and have potential to be in main space if sources are provided. Do use R2 sparingly (important) as it is not a substitute of AfD. Let me know if you have further questions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: - Got the second one. Hog Farm (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm see above comments. If you have further questions then let me know or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia - Ready for the next assignment. Thanks. Hog Farm (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Notes:

• WP:NPPDRAFT /R2 - do so for articles have no sources or sources that are primary/not independent, such as from their home page, user generated sites or sport databases, club home page for sportspersons. If you could find 3 independent, reliable sources to support the notability of the subject, then please do so and add the source in the article and mark review.

• PROD - (1) When it does not fall under CSD but not controversial deletion with the notion that it will be deleted if the article is AfDed. (2) We can only PROD the article once thus do check the history page to make sure the article has not been PROD before. (3) If the PROD is removed, do not replace it (4) PROD would last for 7 day start from the date of the nomination and will be either deleted or removed of the tag by an uninvolved admin who decides the outcome of the nomination.

• BLPROD - (1) nominated if only there is no source for article about a living person. (2) BLPPROD can be removed only an reliable is added. (3) Even item 2 has been performed but editor still think it is should be deleted under PROD (1) criteria then a PROD can be tag. (3) if PROD (1) is not applicable and editor could nominate the article for AfD if the subject is not notable.

• AfD - Nominated articles to AfD if the subject is not notable or fall under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. A WP:BEFORE should be done prior the nominated. If the article states the nationlity of the subject and a local name is provided, do search the local name in said country in Google to look for sources if any (2) Reason / justification based on notability guidelines should be address when nominate AfD or participate in a AfD. (3) Do not AfD if the sources are provided but you can locate/view them due to paywall, print book/article to determined the content claimed as per sources. (4) Request paywall article /print book from WP:RX to view the content (make sure you have you email provided in your preferences page, so the RX editors could send you the article via email). (4) You might want to reconsider not to AfD an article if the sources of the article could be found mostly in other languages besides English or other languages that you dont comprehend.

• R2 - We do a R2 for potential new page where no a source is provided. If the article do have some info on the External link section, notes, official websites links then dont do a R2. Also, only do a R2 sparingly. Even though move to draft is a space place for the creator to add the relevant sources into the article -see WP:BURDEN but some admins would considered it is a "road to deletion", since if the creator does not do add in the source and click the submission button, the article might nominate for deletion under WP:G13 six months later. Plus pls note R2 is not a subsistute of AfD. So be aware. Place {{Db-r2|bot=Not a single source provided}} (or bot= the reason you nominate this article for R2) on top of the page. Pls let me know if you need some help and ping me once you have the R2.

---

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.
• Pls download StubSorter user script. The script is for adding/removing stub tags.
• Pls download 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 explanation in your own words and provide hist diff when applicable.

1. Why do we place tags on the article?

Answer:

To alert users that an article needs worked on in some way(s). For instance, users who enjoy copy editing can go through the category of pages tagged for needing a copyedit, and then work on those issues.

Y And it also caution the reader of certain problematic issue as per tag(s). Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

2. What does "drive by tagging" mean?

Answer:

Adding a tag to an article when the problem isn't obvious without explaining on the talk page the rationale behind the tag. This is discouraged.

Y. Drive by tagging is adding tags for subtle problems without understanding what the problem is. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer:

1. Tags that don't make it clear what the problem is
2. Using the wrong tag
3. Adding tags that mean basically the same thing as tags already in the article
4. Tagging problems that don't exist to try to make a point
5. Tagging non-obvious problems, but not explaining at the talk page what the problem is
6. Adding tags just for the sake of tagging articles
7. Placing too many tags at one time - placing 8 tags is not going to help anything
8. Placing tags such as NPOV or COI just to make a point that you don't like the article.

Y. Also removing tags at the inappropriate time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

4. When it is appropriate to remove the tags?

Answer:

When either the problem has been fixed, or the problem is no longer applicable. Unless removing the tag is a cut-and-dry issue, then the tag removal should be explained on the talk page.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

5. Tag 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed where appropriate tags are needed and provide associate personal message to creator using page curator tool.

(pls provide links)

i. Answers: Tagged Cornelius Atherton as unreferenced. Notified User:Adin-Atherton. Diffs of [10] (tag) and [11] (notify user)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answers: Tagged 2020 EFL Championship play-off final as unreferenced. Notified User:Brianludden05. Diff of [12] for tag and diff of [13] for notification

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answers: Tagged Achola Rosario as orphan. Diff of [14] Notified User:Sandra Aceng, diff of [15]

N. As per this version. There are wikilinks in the article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answers: Tagged Riskee And The Ridicule for notability-music. Doesn't seem to meet the music notability guidelines, but I don't know a whole lot about UK punk rock, so I'll just tag it and let an expert in that subject matter deal with it. Diff of tag [16] Diff of notify [17]

Y. Band notability guideline s- see Wikipedia:Notability (music). To me the band does not meet the guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

v. Answers: Tagged Rukh-Shana Namuyimba as needing more citations. Diff of notify of [18], diff of tag of [19]

Y. Need more indept secondary sources and citations. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answers: Tagged Zhongshan West railway station as unreferenced. Diff of tag of [20] Diff of notify of [21]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answers: Tagged PIP2 domain as needing more citations. Diff of tag of [22], diff of notify of [23]

Y Do have secondary sources but citations were not in certain sections. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

viii.Answers: Tagged Forest meditation as unreferenced. Diff of tag of [24]. Diff of notify of [25]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answers: Tagged Line 4 (Naples) as unreferenced. Diff of tag of [26], diff of notify of [27]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

x. Answers: Tagged Gomolo as unreferenced. diff of tag of [28]. Diff of notify of [29]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

6. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and use StubSorter user script. Tag 10 sub class article correctly from Special:Newpagesfeed. (pls provide links)

i. Answers: Even Financial. Added two sub sorter. Diff of [30]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answers: Sovereign Military Order of Malta–European Union relations. Added three sub sorts. Diff of [31]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answers: Scandium perchlorate - Added one sub sort. Diff of [32]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answers: 1982–83 Utah Utes men's basketball team - Added one stub sort. Diff of [33]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

v. Answers: Curio muirii - Added one stub sort. diff of [34]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answers: 4-Methylenedioxy-4-imidazoline - Added one stub sort. Diff of [35]

Y. APRODed and deleted and take your action as right for I cant read it now. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answers: John Craig (economist) - Added one stub sort. Diff of [36]

Y. or "Scotland-bio-stub". Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

viii.Answers: Marty Goddard - Added one stub sort. Diff of [37]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answers: Andrea Young - Added one stub sort. Diff of [38]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

x. Answers: Najmi Ahmad - Added one stub sort. Diff of [39]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Categorization

7. Please read Wikipedia:Categorization and assign 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed with one or more useful categories. You can check similar articles for potentially relevant categories. (pls provide links)

i. Answers: Added three categories to Manuela Furlan (typo, changed one in the next edit). Diff of [40].

Y cant view the article as it has been deleted, so I will take your work for it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answers: Added Category:Lists of firearms to List of firearms (A) Diff of [41]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answers: Added Category:Lists of firearms to List of firearms (R) Diff of [42]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answers: Added Category: Santa Barbara County, California to Camino Cielo. Diff of [43]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

v. Answers: Added one category to Sidi Harazem Bath Complex. Diff of [44]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answers: Added one category to Avraham Moshe Bonhart. Diff of [45]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answers: Added three categories to Riskee And The Ridicule, diff of [46]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

viii.Answers: Added three categories to Rukh-Shana Namuyimba. Diff of [47]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answers: Added one category to Zhongshan West railway station Diff of [48]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

x. Answers: Added Category:Lipids to PIP2 domain. Diff of [49]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Sorting

8. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:Content assessment and tag 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed with appropriate WikiProject and class types on the articles' talk pages. Please use Rater user script. (pls provide links)

i. Answers: Rated List of firearms (A) for two projects. Diff of [50]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answers: Rated List of firearms (R) for two projects. Diff of [51]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answers: Najmi Ahmad - Rated for three projects. Diff of [52] (created the talk page with this edit, so no great diff for this)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answers: Mohammed Hussain Nasrallah - Rated for two projects. Diff of [53]

Y. Subject is a person so "Biography" project should be added. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

v. Answers: 2020 EFL Championship play-off final - Rated for three projects. Diff of [54]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answers: Princepal Singh - Rated for two projects. Diff of [55]

Y. Subject is a person so "Biography" project should be added. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answers: 1906 Chicago Physicians and Surgeons football team - Rated for one project. Diff of [56]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

viii.Answers: Ivankivtsi, Ternopil Hromada - Rated for one project. Diff of [57]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answers: Lâm Sơn - Rated for one project. Diff of [58]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

x. Answers: Cosmos and History - Rated for two projects. Diff of [59]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Short description

9. short description suitable to allow a reader to identify which search result is most likely to suit their needs. All mainspace pages should have a description of what they are preferably limit to about 40 characters, but function is important. Please read Wikipedia:Short description and Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions and provide 10 short descriptions in 10 different articles from Special:Newpagesfeed. Please enable User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper prior making the edit. (pls provide links)

i. Answer: Added "Italian rugby union player" to Manuela Furlan. Diff of [60]

Y page has been deleted for such I cant view the page, so I will take your work for it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Added "Jewish religious leader" to Gershon Edelstein. Diff of [61]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Added "River in Bhutan" to Pho Chhu Diff of [62]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Added "Kenyan record label" to WeOwnFire Diff of [63]

Y page has been deleted for such I cant view the page, so I will take your work for it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Added "Fútsal club in Barrio Obero, Asunción, Paraguay" to Corrales FBC. Diff of [64]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Added "Indian martial artist and self-defense trainer" to Cherupalli Vivek Teja. Diff of [65]

Y page has been deleted for such I cant view the page, so I will take your work for it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: Added "American IndyCar Series racing team to Citrone/Buhl Autosport. Diff of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citrone%2FBuhl_Autosport&type=revision&diff=962284465&oldid=962284142

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

viii. Answer: Added "Diplomatic relations between Malta and the European Union to Sovereign Military Order of Malta–European Union relations, diff of [66]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answer: Added "Australian professional golfer" to George Serhan, diff of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Serhan&type=revision&diff=962791612&oldid=962790396

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: Added "Canadian ambassador" to Renata Wielgosz, diff of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renata_Wielgosz&type=revision&diff=962791812&oldid=962791417

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Hog Farm Apologies. See assignment 6 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: - I'm having computer issues, so I won't be able to run the new pages feed for awhile. Hog Farm (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm No worries. I will review what you have answered and when you computer is up and running and able to view new page then continue to work on those questions accordingly. Thank you for informing me. stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm Good work. when you can access to new page feed then pls complet the remaining 3 questions on "6.1 Tagging in the article" section. Pls ping me when you have finished them. thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: - Finally done. Note that one of the tags articles, the Naples line 4 one, was draftified after my tag and then recreated in the mainspace later. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm Reviewed and thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11

17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Communication and editor interactions

Wikipedia project is a collaboration of many editors, some are experienced and some are new to the Project ad Wikipedia values all constructive editors' contributions alike. Communication in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged especially to new editors who are not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies for most new editors find it is a steep learning curve during the first few months of editing articles or creating articles in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and welcome template and answer the following questions. Do provide links and hist diff where appropriate.

Communication

1. How do we deal with a bad faith registered user and how do we deal with a bad faith IP editor?

Answer:

First, it's important to not jump to the conclusion that bad faith is going on unless they've given you a really obvious reason not to. At least in my view, registered users and IPs should be treated equally, except for the consideration that an IP may be shared, so more than one user (some of whom may be productive contributers) may be on that IP. If there's a disagreement going on, provide linked policy-based statements to support your view. If it gets to the point that a report needs to be filed against an obviously bad-faith user, then always provide diffs for evidence of the behaviors.

Y. We treat IP and registered user the same way. However, we could not able to know who is behind the screen inregradless they are using the same IP address or use the registered user account (in the case the registered account was not log off and another family member/friend using the account to edit), we still would treat the IP/registered account the same way; in another words, if the editor makes a vandalism edit, we revert and place warning message on their talk page; if it is good faith but unhelpful edit, we write a personal message to the editor on their talk page and provide them the info/advice and the Wikipedia guideline links. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

2. What can we do to welcome and help the newcomers.? (List down 10 different ways/scenario)

i. Answer: Assume that they're genuinely wanting to help the encyclopedia.

But what can we do? Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer again: Realize that errors are likely good-faith errors, for instance, new users may not realize that information needs an inline citation. Treat them like they're in a learning process, not like you would a vandal.

{{tick}. Cassiopeia^(talk)

ii. Answer: Help inform them of small things you wouldn't think of in a non-put-downing way. For instance, it took me almost a week to realize that four ~ would sign signatures automatically for me, so I had to manually copy the syntax of other user's comments and look up UTC on my own for a week.

Y Good. You would also provide the Wikipedia markup page - Help:Wikitext on their talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Link to policies for them. New editor's aren't going to understand what notability is, for example.

Y Good.06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: If you notice a new editor doing something particularly effective, give them a nice note on their talk page.

Y Nice!. I like that. A word of encouragement or praise go a long way. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: New users frequently use test edits in the article space. When reverting/warning, explain test edits and point them to the sandbox. Don't call test edits by new users vandalism, unless its blatant

Y. There is a test edit warning template via Twickle. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Communicate first. Many new editors will be making iffy edits through lack of experience. Don't just take them to AIV instantly.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: Don't be overeager with pushing deletion. Consider trying to fix the article first. For instance, if a new editor creates a BLP article with no sources, add a reliable source, instead of quickly BLP PRODding

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

viii. Answer: I've done a little bit of WP:UAA work. There's some users that will report anything borderline from a new users. It's generally less WP:BITEy to communicate with them on their talk page rather than just report them to UAA without thinking.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answer: Give them a friendly welcome. A friendly welcome soon after they start editing helps to make the place more friendly.

Y. Good - Friendly and informatve! The welcome template provide many basic Wikipedia guidelines and info so the new editor would learn about Wikipedia. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: If they jump into complex tasks early, like AfD, and mess up, don't go after them for it unless it becomes a big problem. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Kind of Town was an AfD I opened early in my editing tenure, and it was a notable subject. Thankfully, I didn't get called incompetent for opening it, or otherwise I may have left.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

3. In you own words, provide 10 ways to avoid biting the newcomers.

i. Answer: Avoid sarcasm. It's really hard to interpret sarcasm in online text.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Assume good faith

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: When explaining things to new user, provide links to policies, so that the user can read and understand, instead of giving the impression that there's a cabal of who says what's acceptable and not

Y. Very well, so they may read the guidelines themselves and able to navigate to other useful pages. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: When providing the links in iii., use full titles, not shortcuts/shorthand. Some of the jargon/shortcuts/shorthand is exclusively used on Wikipedia, so new users will find it incomprehensible.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Don't tag articles for deletion immediately after creation (except in extreme circumstances), give it awhile to see if it grows.

Y. In NPP page, I usually would wait for 2 hours after the page is on the New Pages Feed to AfD; However, for article meets CSD especially violate of copyvio and promotion in nature do CSD it asap. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Consider using personalized messages, rather than just using templates, particularly with some of the warning templates, which would freak out a new user.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: If an edit by a new user has an edit with broken syntax or another minor problem, go ahead and fix the problem, instead of reverting it

Y. very well. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

viii. Answer: Don't call something vandalism in an edit summary unless it really is vandalism.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answer: Don't call their work junk, or any other equivalent phrase.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: Don't call them a sockpuppet/SPA/etc.

Y. Be civil in communication. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

4. Place 5 different welcome templates on 5 different newcomers. (Pls provide user talk page links)

i. Answer: User:Usedwii diff

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: User:Oroboros66. diff

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: User:Radioguy85. diff

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: User:Therealanswerwasnothing. diff

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: User:Kid275. diff

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

5. List 5 uncivil behaviors and explain how you would duel with them.

i. Answer: Revenge deletion nominations of articles you created/significant worked on. Don't attack the user or accuse them of a revenge nom. Instead, plainly and calmly use policy-based reasoning as to why the article/redirect/file is acceptable for Wikipedia. If you can't do that, then maybe the article isn't suitable after all

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Profanity. Just ignore it. I have a real-life job that involves me getting swore at a lot, so I'm use to just ignoring such language.

Y. It is important to not to engage with the editor but do send them a warning message. If a serious profanity on editor talk page, report them to AIV (if you revert their vandalsim edit and they troll you on your talk page) or to ANI (for other matters) so they would be blocked. I am sorry to know you real-life job do involve such langues - it is just not nice to be treated in such manner for there are many ways to communicate the same and more effective as well. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Legal threats. Tactfully point the threatening editor to Wikipedia:No legal threats and quietly contact an administrator for revision deletion of the threat. If the problem persists, the user may have to be reported to ANI.

Y No legal threats/physical harm threats - report to ANI asap. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Accusations of being a single-purpose account. This has happened to me. Point out your varied work to them, maybe the user will find an area they're interested in. (Side note: the user who accused me turned out to be a SPA sockpuppet, although I did not accuse them of such).

Y. If we suspect an editor is a SOCK, do some research first, check their edit/contribution log, their talk pages, who they talk to, their behavior, pattern and pages they edited. You need to provide all the hist diffs, reasons, justifications when reporting an editor is a SOCK of another editor. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Trolling. Don't feed the trolls. Quietly report to AIV, revert the edits (rollback is your friend), and maybe quietly list the page for protection if it gets really bad. Don't draw extra attention to them.

Y Very well! We do engage with troll as it feed their intention to have the attention they need. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A token of appreciation

We reward Wikipedia editors for their hard work and due diligence by awarding them barnstars as a token of appreciation, encouragement and make its recipient feel good of their contributions. The choice of banstar given should be fair and appropriate, which will help prevent over-use. There are many different type of banstars, kindly read Wikipedia:Barnstars, Wikipedia:Personal user awards

5. Give 5 different banstars to 5 different editor and do provide relevant text as to why you are awarding them. (Pls provide links)

i. Answer: User talk:Parsecboy - The Good Articles Barnstar. Diff of [67]. Very prolific editor at bringing articles to GA-status.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: User talk:Sturmvogel 66 - The Writer's Barnstar. Diff of [68]. Prolific article writer at WP:MILHIST, a WikiProject I'm involved with

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: User talk:Gog the Mild - The Original Barnstar. Diff of [69]. They helped me a lot in preparing an article I've been working on for it's ongoing FAC. I've been busy with the FAC, which is why progress here has been slow.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: User talk:Djmaschek - The American Civil War Barnstar. Diff of [70]. Excellent article writing.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: User talk:Eddie891 - The Original Barnstar. Diff of [71]. Editor I've worked with several times who's running for RFA, I personally think they'd make a great admin.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Hog Farm pls see assignment 7 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm Hi not sure you have noticed that I had posted Assignment 7 for you 5 days ago. when you have done with the assignment, pls ping me. Stay safe and best Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: - I do believe I've got all these answered. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm Well-done. I think you miss answering Q2. Stay safe and best. I will post Assignment 8 & 9 next. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: - I have re-answered the one question. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

{{Hog Farm done review. Let me know when you have done assignment 9 (last assignment prior final exam). Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Tools and help

#	Tools	For / Functions
1	Twinkle	Wikipedia gadget to assist common maintenance tasks
2	Hotcat	Wikipedia gadget to propose existing categories for auto-completion
3	Resource Request	Wikipedia help desk to locate content of printed books or form paywall sites
4	Google translate	Translation
5	Citation Tool for Google Books	Citation tool for Google books
6	Reverse Image Search	Reverse image serach
7	User:Interstellarity/CSD log	Your Criteria for speedy deletion log]
8	This is your AfD log	Your Article for Deletion log
9	Earwig's Copyvio Detector via web Earwig Copyvio Detector script	Copyvio detector tool
10	CV-revdel	Delete copyrighted content request
11	StubSorter user script.	Adding/removing stub tags
12	Rater user script	Adding, removing, or modifying WikiProject banners, including class and importance assessment
13	StubSorter user script	Adding stub class sorter
14	Shortdesc helper script Wikipedia gadget - Adding short description in the article
15	Special:NewPagesFeed	Search new articles in Wikipedia
16	Copyvio Check	Displays the % of copyvio in a separate section of the info menu of the NPP toolset.
17	Superlinks	Quickly view pages and information related to the page they are currently viewing or editing without the need to navigate away form current page
18	NPP flowchart	NPP flowchart

---

Hog Farm No home works for Assignment 8 - Just make sure you have all the tools which I have provided to you so far and know how to use them and when to use them.06:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Putting all together -reviewing articles

• Please install COPYVIO check script. This is a script which displays the % of copyvio in a separate section of the info menu of the NPP toolset. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

• Please install Superlinks script. This script allows users to quickly view pages and information related to the page they are currently viewing or editing without the need to navigate away from the page or open large numbers of new tabs. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

• Bookmark NPP flowchart in your devices.

• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

Reviewing articles

Please refer to NPP flowchart and read all the reading material provide from Assignment and tools 1-8 and answer the questions below. Please pick 10 articles from the new pages or draft pages from Special:NewPagesFeed and follow the NPP flowchart and provide the appropriate answer below (pls place N/A if not applicable). Pick articles that have 3-4 sources for the exercises below.

0. Example

1. Article (pls provide link) = Assignment 2 - Sources Q 8 and 9 Q 8 - David Howell Petraeus
2. Article titles (need to change if so state the change) = OK
3. Images copyright = US free image
4. NPOV (if not then state why) =yes
5. COI / PAID (if yes then provide explanation)= no indication
6. COPYVIO (if yes then provide source (URL) = not
7. Article Class = Stub class
8. Short Description = U.S. Army general
9. Categories (3-5) = 1952 births  ; Living people ; Commandants of the United States Army Command
10. Review (Review/AfD/PROD/BLPPROD/R2) = Reviewed
11. Reason (for x) = meet GNG and Military history/Notability guide#2
12. Sources (see below)

Pls 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".

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	CNN is independent of the government.	CNN is generally considered reliable.	CNN shows him taking the oath.	✔ Yes
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893	Independent of the government	Is very opinionated	Addresses the topic in detail	✘ No
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012	The subject isn't connected to the maker of the family tree.	Can't be verified.	? Not sure	✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005	Not connected to the subject.	The source is considered reliable.	Talks about the subject in detail.	✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html	The subject is talking to the author.	It comes from a reputable news source.	He is the subject of the interview.	✘ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html	The author is not directly connected with the subject.	The source is a news source that has a reputation of being reliable.	The article talks about him in 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}}.

---

1.

1. Article = Zera Shimshon
2. Article titles = Correct
3. Images copyright = No images
4. NPOV = No issues in the version I reviewed
5. COI / PAID = No red flags, and seems unlikely there'd be a COI on this subject
6. COPYVIO = No issues detected
7. Article Class = Stub, classed for two projects
8. Short Descr = Already added by author, looks acceptable
9. Categories = Already added by author, the most relevant one is already in there
10. Review = Gave it a couple CN tags, but looks like a decent stub otherwise
11. Reason (for v) = Looks notable (barely). A few issues, but is in good enough shape to probably exist in the mainspace.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[72]	Major Jewish organization, not affiliated with writer of text	The source looks reliable enough to me, but I'm not super familiar with Jewish sources	Multiple paragraphs about the text's teachings.	✔ Yes
	Not affiliated with subject	Looks user-generated	Incorrect link, but the current link doesn't look relevant	✘ No
Offline source	Doesn't appear to be affiliated with author	can't access	can't access	? Unknown
[73]	Looks unaffiliated	Can't tell. Site is mostly code jibberish	From what I can parse out, it's just an advertisement for downloading the tract	✘ No
[74]	Looks unaffiliated	Appears to have editorial oversight	Just barely. One paragraph about this history of the tract	✔ Yes
[75]	Looks unaffiliated. It's labeled "Communicated content", and I wouldn't use the second half, which is an advertisement for a rabbi, but the first half is decent	Looks acceptable enough in the part actually about the tract	Yes	✔ Yes
[76]	Looks unaffiliated.	Does not appear to have editorial oversight, probably self-published	Not really, it's just two or three sentences, mostly about the author	✘ No
[77]	Sales site	Trying to sell me the product, bias issues	About a different book, I can't even determine what the connection is	✘ No
[78]	Sales site	Trying to sell me the product, bias issues	Again, doubtful relevance	✘ 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}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

2.

1. Article = Daniel E. Gottschling
2. Article titles = Moved to Daniel Gottschling, per WP:COMMONNAME, no need for the E. for disambiguating
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = Not an issue
5. COI / PAID = Not any big red flags
6. COPYVIO = Earwig only flags titles
7. Article Class = Stub, added to two projects
8. Short Descr = Added "American biologist"
9. Categories = Added one.
10. Review = Moving to draft
11. Reason (for v) = Article isn't ready for mainspace. His yeast research appears to be possibly of importance, but almost all of the current refs are affiliated with the subject.
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://oh.sciencehistory.org/oral-histories/gottschling-daniel-e	It's the library card for an interview, but it gives a paragraph-long biography probably from the library	Reliable educational source	In-depth about the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.gs.washington.edu/faculty/gottschling.htm	By his employer	Some bias, but not going to be making stuff up	Little actually about the subject	✘ No
http://www.nasonline.org/member-directory/members/20024835.html	Organization he is a member of, probably written by the subject	Reliable organization likely providing editorial oversight	About the subject in detail	✘ No
http://www.nasonline.org/programs/awards/molecular-biology.html	Organization he's part of	Reliable organization	Only a sentence	✘ 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}}.

Not able to review. The page has been deleted. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

3.

1. Article = DeVerne Lee Calloway
2. Article titles = Correct, appears to be WP:COMMONNAME with the middle name in there
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = Good here
5. COI / PAID = no signs
6. COPYVIO = Earwig clean
7. Article Class = Stub, rated for three projects
8. Short Descr = Added
9. Categories = The most obvious ones already added
10. Review = Good, in-depth sources, and a clear WP:NPOL pass.
11. Reason (for v) = Passes the GNG and the SNG
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://oxfordaasc.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195301731.001.0001/acref-9780195301731-e-35499	Not affiliated with the subject	Publisher is a reliable organization	Yes, significant coverage	✔ Yes
Offline	Looks unaffiliated	From online research, the publisher looks reputable	Can't access	? Unknown
https://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/historicallistings/molegc	Government website of a government she was a legislator in	US state government website	Just name, party, and term dates basically	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/33468412/deverne-calloway-obit/	Regional newspaper	Newspaper of record in St. Louis	Significant coverage	✔ Yes
https://tam.missouri.edu/MHCTC/docs/suffrage/notable4.pdf	Unaffiliated with subject	? Unclear if this is a student project or produced by university faculty	Significant coverage	? Unknown
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}}.

Y. Good work here.10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

4.

1. Article = Donald Fear
2. Article titles = Looks correct.
3. Images copyright = Nominated one for deletion at Commons as a COPYVIO
4. NPOV = Not promotional
5. COI / PAID = Not paid, although likely written by a friend or relative
6. COPYVIO = Earwig clean
7. Article Class = One stub sort
8. Short Descr = Added
9. Categories = Added to two categories
10. Review = Take to AFD (actually, someone beat me to it while I was doing this)
11. Reason (for v) = Barely even a claim to significance. All of the sources are crap.
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2012/10/13/wakeman-school-memories-sought-as-closure-looms/	interview	Reliable newspaper	About his employer, not him	✘ No
https://www.adamsgs.uk/school-life/curriculum/history	his employer	School district website	Just his name/bare contact info	✘ No
http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/All_Time_Winners_List	Not affiliated	Doesn't appear to have editorial oversight or fact-checking	Mentions his brother, not him	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53860189	It's the BBC	BBC is reliable	Piece doesnt' name contestant, so I can't tell if its about Fear or not	? Unknown
https://tabletennisengland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/TTN/2002-03/May2003.pdf	Table tennis pubication, doesn't seem to have a close tie to him	Looks decent enough, probably official from some organization	just a namecheck	✘ 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}}.

Y. Do provide the link for AfD next time - see here AfD also do provide the article redirect page next time - I would take the hist diff version of THIS]. If the source (BBC) does not mentioned the subject that even the source is reliable and independent, it does not count for weighting notability of the subject (no contribution to the notability of the subject). Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

5.

1. Article = Sarat Kumar Patra
2. Article titles = Looks correct
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = No issues
5. COI / PAID = No red flags
6. COPYVIO = Earwig clean
7. Article Class = Stub sorted
8. Short Descr = Added
9. Categories = Category added
10. Review = Copy edit tag, and tagged for sources exist
11. Reason (for v) = His directorship post seems to meet WP:NACADEMIC #7, although this isn't my specialty area. A WP:BEFORE search is also bringing up some coveage, so it looks like he's notable.
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nitrkl.ac.in/docs/Faculty/CV/1890547.pdf	Former employer	Major university	Significant coverage	✘ No
http://iiitvadodara.ac.in/faculty/skp001.php	Employer	Major university	Direct, significant coverage	✘ No
https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=6vFfeb4AAAAJ&hl=en	Not affiliated with Google scholar	Citations of scientific papers	Only a list of published papers and their citations	✘ No
				? Unknown
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}}.

Even thought the page has been deleted, but from the sources above, your assessment is correct but I cant review the rest of your answer. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

6.

1. Article = JoJo & Gran Gran
2. Article titles = Apparently correctd
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = No issues
5. COI / PAID = Nope
6. COPYVIO = Earwig clean
7. Article Class = Stub sorted, assessed for project
8. Short Descr = Added
9. Categories = Main ones already present
10. Review = Moved to draft, and left the author a note on the their talk page with some sources I found.
11. Reason (for v) = Sourcing's a mess right now, but there's some good sources out there.
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://www.thecomposerworks.com/news/jojo-gran-gran/	Doesn't look affiliated	Posted by user "SB"	Routine program announcement	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2020/11/jojo-and-grangran	BBC owns the channel the show runs on	It's the BBC	Extensive coverage of the show's premise	✘ No
https://inews.co.uk/culture/jojo-gran-gran-cartoon-celebrating%E2%80%94black-british-family-bonds-406058	I'm getting an error code	I'm getting an error code	I'm getting an error code	? Unknown
https://melanmag.com/2020/03/17/jojo-gran-gran-cbeebies-tv-series/	Interview with someone affiliated with the program	I don't really trust the reliability of interviews	Significant coverage about the inspiration of the show.	✘ 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}}.

Y Again, do provide all the hist diff/link - I take this version] of your assessment] and saw the message you wrote on the editor talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

7.

1. Article = Cladonia evansii
2. Article titles = Correct
3. Images copyright = Licensing is correct and free
4. NPOV = No issues
5. COI / PAID = I can't image someone writing an article about a lichen for pay
6. COPYVIO = Earwig clean
7. Article Class = Two stub sort, assessed as stub for wikiproject
8. Short Descr = Added
9. Categories = Most obvious ones added
10. Review = I would accept this if I were NPP reviewing
11. Reason (for v) = Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, species are inherently notable. Sources are brief but establishes it is an accepted name and exists, which is enough for the SNG
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.gbif.org/species/3390305	Not affiliated with subject	Apparently a major species database	While it's briefer coverage, it gives the full names and who discovered it, and the range, which is fairly key information for species	✔ Yes
https://eol.org/pages/6592236/names	Not affiliated with subject	Reasonably accepted database	A little skimpy on information besides just the name.	✘ No
				? Unknown
				? Unknown
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}}.

Y We learn so much from Wikipedia of all the subjects we have never heard of :). Usually "significant coverage" would mean min 3 -5 IRS, but subject of such, the sources usually could be found on print material. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

8.

1. Article = Callos a la Madrileña
2. Article titles = Correct
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = No issues
5. COI / PAID = No red flags
6. COPYVIO = Earwig clean, no apparent issues
7. Article Class = Couple of stub sorts, rated for two projects
8. Short Descr = Added "Spanish stewed tripe dish"
9. Categories = The ones I can think of already added
10. Review = Acceptable
11. Reason (for v) = There appears to be decent sources out there. (Look at the Spanish version, where the sourcing looks pretty good)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://recetasdecocina.elmundo.es/2017/05/callos-madrilena-receta-casera.html	Looks independent	? I have no idea what this source is, and I don't read the relevant language	Looks like it does, although I can't read the language	? Unknown
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lobel_s_Meat_and_Wine/fcMC0VCHZ9gC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Callos+a+madrilena&pg=PA207&printsec=frontcover	No obvious connection	Reputable publisher	Yep	✔ Yes
Offline source	Looks independent	Reputable publisher	? Can't access source	? Unknown
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Philippine_Cookbook/HUaDoUF0tRwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA125&printsec=frontcover	no obvious affiliation	Publisher looks decent	Not really. Just a recipe. Some of the others give a little background, but this one's just a brief recipe.	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Philippine_Food_Cooking_Dining_Dictionar/STSWDwAAQBAJ	Doesn't appear unaffiliated	Publisher looks okay	? Can't access relevant part	? Unknown
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}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

9.

1. Article = Loukanikos (dog)
2. Article titles = Looks correct, the disambiguator is needed
3. Images copyright = Looks acceptable
4. NPOV = Okay on that front
5. COI / PAID = No red flags
6. COPYVIO = Earwig flags a violation, but after investigation, it's just someone posting this article to Reddit.
7. Article Class = Done acceptably by creator
8. Short Descr = Added
9. Categories = Added by creator
10. Review = It's acceptable
11. Reason (for v) = While the sourcing currently in the article is borderline, there's definitely some coverage in existence a WP:BEFORE brings up: the dog got obits in several major worldwide news outlets. Probably other sourcing in Greek, too, which I don't read.
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29565725	No obvious connection	Yep	Yes	✔ Yes
https://www.spottedbylocals.com/athens/loukanikos-graffiti/	Looks unaffiliated	Dubious	More about graffiti of this dog, and rather brief in general	✘ No
https://libcom.org/gallery/loukanikos-greek-anarchist-dog	Looks unaffiliated	? I'm honestly not sure, but it's not sigcov, so it doesn't matter	Just photos	✘ No
				? Unknown
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}}.

Y Since the article name is the only article in English Wikiipedia, for such "{dog)" should be removed. Secondly, if you would find IRS then as add them in, so it would straighten the nobility of the guidelines (same in AfD).

---

10.

1. Article = Pocatello Idaho Temple
2. Article titles = looks correct
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = No issues
5. COI / PAID = No red flags.
6. COPYVIO = Earwig flags what appears to be a mirror
7. Article Class = Assessed as stub for two projects (United States and LDS)
8. Short Descr = Included by author
9. Categories = Included by author, although I removed a nonexistent one.
10. Review = Well, I was gonna AFD it, given that all of the sourcing lacked independence, but my WP:BEFORE search turned up a good deal of coverage, so I quickly added three sources, so it looks to pass WP:GNG
11. Reason (for v) = It looks like there's certainly more coverage beyond what I've added, so I'd say this is a GNG pass
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/	Official site of the religious denomination of the church.	Yeah, the LDS generally doesn't lie about news events, although there's gonna be some bias. Historical facts: dubious.	Just a link to the homepage	✘ No
newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/groundbreaking-held-pocatello-idaho-temple	From the religious group the church is part of	As above.	No, broken link that redirects to the homepage (URL in article is different	✘ No
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/pocatello-idaho-temple/	Again, also affiliated with the LDS	As above	Significant history of the structure	✘ No
				? Unknown
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}}.

Y Thank you for adding the sources.10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Creating article

Please create an article in via Wikipedia:Articles for creation where by the subject is notable, the content adhere to all the requirement and appropriate tagging/labeling/linkings as discussed from Assignment 1-8. Some notable subjects could be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/API Women, notable MMA fighter Terrion Ware - article can be created from the redirect page here Terrion Ware]. [https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Terrion-Ware-106755 Terrion Ware Sherdog fight record. You can use Dan_Ige as the template.

Landis' Missouri Battery is my favorite I've written. Second Battle of Newtonia Site is my most recent.

Y Excellent! so well written and I wish I have your command of English. Even thougth I cant access to the print source but the article was accepted as a "good article" and believe the good article reiewers have done their work. Thank you for your contribution. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Hog Farm See Assignment 9 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Cassiopeia: - I know this probably sounds like a bit of a lazy copout, but do I need to do the creating article section if I'm autopatrolled? See Landis' Missouri Battery, 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate), and Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment as examples of my work; I've created almost 20 articles on similar topics from scratch. All but the 8th Mo. Infantry are GA (it's still being reviewed), a couple are WP:MILHIST A-Class, and the Landis' Battery one is at FAC. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm I am very impressed with your work (articles) for it is very well written for I wish I do have your command of English to do the same. I will take one of them for the question "creating article" as it meets all the requirements (assignment 1-8). Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: - Finally all done, sorry this took so long. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm OK. Good to know, give me a few days to review it. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm Reviewed. Good work here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Notes

Assignment 1

• WP:AGF and not WP:BITE -We should always help the new editors who want to provide good contribution and want to improve Wikipedia even at time they might not know the the Wikipedia guidelines

• WP:Notability - In Wikipedia, notability means "worthy to be noted" - it is defined as a topic is "presumably" notable for stand-alone article or list if (1) it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject whee by the sources talk "directly" about the subject in depth and in length and not only passing mentioned and (2) it is not excluded under the What WP:Wikipedia is not policy.

• WP:GNG and SSN - both could be used when reviewing an article.

Assignment 2

• WP:Sources - Sources needed are significant coverage of published Independent / WP:SECONDARY , reliable sources to verify the content claimed where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not only passing mentioned.

Assignment 3

• WP:Content Policy - Article needs to adhere to Wikipedia Content Policy in article article title, WP:Biographies of living persons, image and text (Wikipedia:Image use policy and WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPOV, verifiability

• WP:COPYVIO - Public domain and note proper nouns are not Copyvio

• Wikipedia:Image use policy - check the original source

Assignment 4

• WP:CSD - go through the criteria

• WP:COI / WP:PAID - Self-disclosure by COI/PAID editors is one of the many ways we find out that they are COI/PAID. The different between a COI say an COI editor write about themselves, or friends is that written prose is not that perfect as compared that to a professional writers' (PAID editor). Secondly, if the article is about a company, the prose of the article is written more like a businesslike (business writing). Thirdly, professional paid editor would provide neat citations and only take one or 2 edits to create the article. In addition, professional PAID editors would create multiple different companies article that normal COI editors would not. Do note PAID is a subset of COI and an COI would also a PAID editor such as a small business owner write about their company or a rapper write about their own article in Wikipedia

• G11 (promo) - What constitute a G11? At times it is hard to define. Although if a article is blantantly promote or advertise about the subject then it is a G11. Sometimes, the it is a little subtle and that would be a judgement call. As a rule of thumb, if article about an entertainers (actor/singer/DJ/artist and etc) in dept of how hard they work, how motivated they are, using all the puffery/flowery languages and especially the subject does not meet notability guidelines. For a corporation, we would see they list down all they product/services, their directors/key person in the company, they mission, their client, they are the influencer in their industrial, all the words/phrased to enhance/market the company and no substantial info that is supported by independent reliable sources. If you look at the this version of Zapp Scooters which you tagged G11, I have to agree with the editor who removed the tag that it is not a G11 and unsourced info can be removed.

• G12 (copyvio) - Copyright violation addresses the use of original expression without permission of the holder which is a violation of laws even the credit is given to the source. For articles, the Copyright Law gives the copyright protection to the “original works of authorship fixed in in a tangible medium of expression” in the newspaper, magazine and freelance article at the moment of their creation, for the life of the creator plus 70 years after, and 95 years for corporation publication or 120 years from date of creation, whichever is shorter.

• A7, A9 and A11 - "Claimed of signification" - As long as the content states a claim of significant in regardless there is no source provided or the claim might not be true, then A7/A9/A11 does NOT apply. Example: "John Smiths is the US senator who lives in Texas" or " Let's Jump, Let's Dance is ranked #2 in Billboard chart in October 2019" or "DM7-29 is a U.S. self-propelled artillery gun developed in 2010 capable hitting the target of 500 miles" - all these 3 examples do claim of significant and some of them might not even be true and there have no source, but they do not qualify for A7/A9/A11. The option is either to PROP them or to do a WP:BEFORE or to do a R2, for potential subject, if it has no source or only primary source provided and if they fails the WP:BEFORE then AfD them. A7 would be something like "John Smiths is my high school teacher, who have a lot of knowledge of algebra" or "The Minnesota Valhalla is the heavy metal band from Minnesota. The band makes up of my brother, Alan, my little sister, Mary and two of my mates, Ken and Jesus. We practice every Monday and Friday at our home garage".

Assignment 5

• WP:NPPDRAFT - do so for articles have no sources or sources that are primary/not independent, such as from their home page, user generated sites or sport databases, club home page for sportspersons. If you would find 3 independent, reliable sources to support the notability of the subject, then please do so and add the source in the article and mark reviewed. It can be tempting for new reviewers to overuse this; it should not be used as a substitute for taking an article to AfD.

• PROD - (1) When it does not fall under CSD but not controversial deletion with the notion that it will be deleted if the article is AfDed. (2) We can only PROD the article once thus do check the history page to make sure the article has not been PROD before. (3) If the PROD is removed, do not replace it (4) PROD would last for 7 day start from the date of the nomination and will be either deleted or removed of the tag by an uninvolved admin who decides the outcome of the nomination.

• BLPROD - (1) nominated if only there is no source for article about a living person. (2) BLPPROD can be removed only an reliable is added. (3) Even item 2 has been performed but editor still think it is should be deleted under PROD (1) criteria then a PROD can be tag. (3) if PROD (1) is not applicable and editor could nominate the article for AfD if the subject is not notable.

• AfD - Nominated articles to AfD if the subject is not notable or fall under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. A WP:BEFORE should be done prior the nominated. If the article states the nationality of the subject and a local name is provided, do search the local name in said country in Google to look for sources if any (2) Reason / justification based on notability guidelines should be address when nominate AfD or participate in a AfD. (3) Do not AfD if the sources are provided but you can locate/view them due to paywall, print book/article to determined the content claimed as per sources. (4) Request paywall article /print book from WP:RX to view the content (make sure you have you email provided in your preferences page, so the RX editors could send you the article via email). (4) You might want to reconsider to AfD an article if the sources of the article would be found mostly in other languages besides English or your languages you comprehend. For example if an article is about a Russian poet or sportman or actors / singer but the subject has not reach worldwide notability/popularity where by most source could not be found in their country reliable newspapers or books other languages but English. I dont often participate/vote for Indian actors as I dont read any Indian languages.

Assignment 6

• Taggaing - sue scripts/tools to tag appropriate cat/wikiproject/subsort/issues in the their respectively fields.

Assignment 7

• Many ways to communicate with the editors - focus on the subject not the ediots. Be civil and helpful always.

While notability is the most important concept for a reviewer, communication is our most important responsibility. Communication takes a few forms for the NPP reviewer:

• Always using clear and helpful edit summaries while patrolling - While using edit summaries is generally good practice, while doing NPP it's important to take it a step further. For instance, a common occurance will be to find an album by a musician with a page, but a particular album doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM. The normal patrol action here is to redirect the album to the page of the artist. An inadequate edit summary would be "redirecting to artist" or some such. I prefer a more complete summary along the lines of "No indication in article of how album is notable per WP:NALBUMS. Redirecting as an WP:ATD."
• Edit summaries are not a replacement, however, for real communication. Depending on context this should either be done on the talk page or the user talk page of the editor. This is especially to be done even if the other editor is only communicating through edit summaries. We have a higher obligation to do it right. Doing this proactively is great. Just as frequently it will be more reactive - for most editors who contact you it will be out of confusion or ignorance. However you will get some angry ones as well. In all cases being the calm professional one in the conversation is vital.
• The final main mode of communication is through the toolset itself. Find a great article? Make sure to leave a comment. See a few articles in a row by a newer user all of which are notable? Leave some wiki love.
• There are a few essential policies and guidelines when it comes to communication. Please read (or re-read) Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, and Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Assignment 8

• Tools - as per listed

Assignment 9

• Reviewing article - Apply what have learnt from Assignment 1-8 when reviewing article.

• Paywall site: If the source is from a paywall site, then see help from WP:RX and you need to forward me the print article once WP:RX send it to you via email.

• Lack of sources : If there is lack of sources, we need to do a WP:BEFORE, then we and add in the sources (at least 3 independent, reliable sources in the article) if we going to mark review.

• Print sources: I do suggest to avoid any print sources for they are hard to located.

• Digital sources of foreign languages: If the sources are digital and in foreign languages, then get it translated.

• Filtering: If you are going to AfD, or PROD then you need to provide reasons of why you are doing do. I would like you to work on different outcomes (some review, some nominated AfD or PROD); however, you still need to do the rest of the requirement such as tagging cats, Wiki Project, subsort (if it is a sub class), send personal messages and etc.

• Work on subject you are familiar with

• For any article without source and you would like to review it and accept the article (meet notability requirements) then you need to find the independent sources (at least 3) which would support the content claimed then place inline citation.

• If you have a hard time to find (say the sources most probably in foreign languages) and it is a potential article, then do a R2.

• For foreign language sources, use google translate, I do that all the time.

• If there is a native name provided in the article, and you know which country the subject is from, then google the native name with the associate country in google search such as a Russian subject then Google search on "native name.ru".

• When reviewing, first pls check if the article fit CSD criteria (do remember to check copyvio), then if the article has no source - do a R2 (I usualy do a R2 for potential article) or tag BLPPROD if it is a BLP or search for the source (I always search for source if I know the subject is notable and add the sources it). For sourced articles, check sources against content claimed. If meet notability guidelines (at least 3 independent, reliable sources needed and check SSN guidelines), then mark review. If the article fails the notability guidelines, then do a PROD if you think if send to AfD will be a definitely delete or nominate AfD for discussion, if you think a discussion should take place.

• Always check all the sources. Any articles that you not sure if it meets notability guidelines, then left them to other patroller.

• When reviewing, make sure take your time - always quality over quantity.

• Creating article - make sure the subject is notable with significant coverage of published Independent / WP:SECONDARY , reliable sources to verify the content claimed where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not only passing mentioned.

---

Hog Farm See notes above. There is no more assignment for this program except for final exam. Once you have read the above and ready for the final exam, then let me know. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: - I think I'm ready for the final exam when you are. I'm currently on quarantine, so I'm liable to have more time for that now than I would otherwise. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Final Exam

Part 1

1. In your own words, why and how do communicate with the editor and why it is important to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE them?

• Answer: We communicate proactively and in a civil manner. Failure to assume good faith creates a battleground environment, which drives productive users away and reduces the quality of the encyclopedia.

2. What kind of sources are needed to demonstrate/contribute the notability of the subject? Why it is important?

• Answer: Multiple independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject are needed. Unreliable sources should not be used in Wikipedia, sources containing insignificant coverage do not prove that the subject has received notability-bringing coverage, and sources that are affiliated with the subject do not indicate that the subject has gotten attention from outside sources

3.What constitutes a WP:COPYVIO? and why it is not a copyvio even the texts are identical the same as per sources?

• Answer: A copyright violation is the use of copyrighted materials without the permission of the author/holder of the copyright. This is illegal under United States law; both text and image can be copyright violations. Even if the texts are identical, it may not be a copyvio. Properly attributed quotes are acceptable (unless used excessively), as is the use of public domain texts. Sometimes texts will be released under a CC license that allows some direct copying; OTRS tickets may be in play under rare circumstances.

4. What should we do when we encounter WP:COPYVIO article and what should we place on the COPYVIO editor's talk page?

• Answer: First, the copyright violations should be removed from the article. If the copyright violations are so extensive that the entire page history is corrupted and there is little left of the article after the removal of the offending material, it should be nominated for WP:G12. If the copyright violations are not as extensive, revision deletion for copyright reasons should be requested.

5. What should we do when we encounter WP:PAID article and what should we place on the PAID editor's talk page?

• Answer: A paid editing article needs moved to the draftspace to get sent through AFC. The editor should also be given a talk page notice about Wikipedia's paid editing rules, and the various COI guidelines.

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

• Answer: When the entire history and content of the article is so corrupted with copyright violations that removing them would leave almost nothing there, then you G12 it. For situations with less severe problems, you ask for revdel.

7. What constitute an article is a WP:PROMO page? and what should do do when we encounter one?

• Answer: A promotional page is one that exists solely to provide an advertisement or vanity page for the subject. In blatant situations, these should be G11'd, although for articles with likely notable subjects, a move to the draftspace is sometimes okay, to send it through AFC.

8. Why do we tag a page? What are the normal tags we place in an article

• Answer: We tag a page when an article has problems that need attention that we are unable to give it ourselves. Common tags include citation needed (especially the inline version), notability tags, and POV/neutrality tags. Tags, if not for super obvious reasons, should be explained on the article talk page. Place only the two or three most important tags if there are many issues, as too many tags causes issues. If you can easily fix the problem, do so instead of tagging, as large backlogs form. (There are over 60,000 articles in the notability tagged category).

9. When do we WP:R2 a page?

• Answer: R2 is for pages with notable subjects, but which do not have the citations to survive at the moment. This is especially for undercited pages about notable people. Since the person is notable, we should have an article about them, but the lack of citations runs afoul of WP:BLP, so R2 sends it to the draftspace to get those citations (hopefully)

10. When do we WP:PROD a page?

• Answer: PROD is for uncontroversial deletion of articles that have not been prodded or sent to AFD before. Most useful for complete junk articles and obviously non-notable subjects who don't fit a clean CSD criteria, as well as more routine cleanup, such as useless dab pages that don't quite meet G14.

11. When do we WP:BLPPROD a page?

• Answer: BLPPROD is for articles about living people who do not have any sources or external links.

12. When do we WP:AfD a page?

• Answer: AFD is for articles whose deletion has been contested or is potentially controversial, but still do not meet inclusion criteria such as WP:NOT or WP:GNG.

13. Why it is important to WP:CSD a page when the article fit the CSD criteria?

• Answer: AFD, and to a lesser degree PROD, is pretty highly taxed. If an article cleanly fits a CSD criteria, it saves editor time of what would be a WP:SNOW deletion discussion. Some CSD criteria are for articles that need deleted quickly for legal reasons, such as G10 and G12.

14. When do we decide to WP:R2 / WP:PROD / WP:BLPPROD a page when the article has no source in it?

• Answer: R2 is for when the subject is definitely notable, but the article is just badly written. PROD is for non-notable subjects with no sources. BLPPROD is for biographies of living people with no sources. However, the article should be given a little bit of time to get worked up to a decent state before its tagged for deletion, unless its a copyvio or an attack page, which need dealt with on sight.

15. In your own words, list 5 things you have learnt from observing and participating in AfD.

• Answer i: Be civil and stay on topic. Uncivil and irrelevant discussions derail the whole discussion, and nothing productive happens.

• Answer ii: Do a proper WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion, or you could end up looking like an idiot.

• Answer iii: Have a decent understanding of the guidelines you are quoting before quoting them

• Answer iv: Citing user essays carries very little weight as compared to citing guidelines and policies, which have community approval and decent standing, although a few long-standing and widely-accepted essays will carry some weight in some occasions. (WP:SOLDIER is an example)

• Answer v: Some areas are just going to be controversial due to differences in application, such WP:NPOL, and if mentions in RS in the context of plot summaries counts as significant coverage for fictional topics. If nominating or participating in these areas, be very thorough.

Part 2

Pls 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). Pls provide the article names and hist diff/links

Answer i:

• Answer ii:

• Answer iii:

• Answer iv:

• Answer v:

Part 3

Pls 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 hist diff 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:

• Answer ii:

• Answer iii:

• Answer iv:

• Answer v:

Part 4

Pls read and A1-A11 and R2 at WP:CSD and and provide 5 successful "Article CSD" articles (with at least two of them are CSD A7) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Pls provide the article names and hist diff.

Answer i: Thogaya.lk (A7 and G11) Can't access the diff since article is deleted, but it ought to show up in my CSD log.

• Answer ii:

• Answer iii:

• Answer iv:

• Answer v:

Part 5

1. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons.

• Answer i: David Sills (disambiguation) - WP:TWODABS would suggest that a hatnote is better, as one of the two entries is at the base title.

• Answer ii:

2. Nominate 1 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons. Answer i:

3. Pls read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT and provide 2 successful WP:R2 from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Pls provide the article names and hist diff.

Answer i:

• Answer ii:

Part 6

1. Participate in 5 WP:AFD where by you are the first voter of the discussion. Please provide you reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.

Answer i: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow of a habit - Voted to redirect to musician's discography section. Non-notable album, can't find any significant coverage in RS, but it's a logical search term.

• Answer ii: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sailing for Madagascar - Delete. Couldn't turn anything in RS up, and neither could the nominator. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

• Answer iii: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okeano - Delete. Very new startup, coverage is in unreliable sources or is paid-for, so it fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.

• Answer iv: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Hampden–Sydney Tigers football team - Redirect to list of team's seasons. Very low-level sports season that failed to get non-local coverage, but there's a table providing basic information about the season, so !voted to redirect there.

• Answer v: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodside Community Church (Baptist) - Delete. Available coverage is trivial or not independent from the subject.

Part 7

Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanation of your nomination.

• Answer i: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermassive (band) - Band that produced and album, but I'm not finding any sort of significant coverage in reliable sources, so it fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.

• Answer ii: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Major (album) - Fails WP:NALBUM. Band is also non-notable, so no good redirect target.

• Answer iii: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facing Future (disambiguation) - Not enough entries to support a dab page

• Answer iv: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facing Future (Organization) - Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG.

• Answer v:

Part 8

Pls list 10 things needs to be considered/done when reviewing a page.'

• Answer i: Check image licensing. If images are incorrectly/falses licensed, nominate them for deletion.

• Answer ii: check for copyright violations. If found, take either revdel or G12, as appropriate

• Answer iii: Look for COI red flags.

• Answer iv: Is it a BLP? If so, place it in the category for living people. If it's uncited and a BLP, use WP:BLPPROD

• Answer v: Is it an attack page? If so, tag for speedy deletion

• Answer vi: Tag the article's talk page for the relevant wikiprojects

• Answer vii: Add to categories, as needed

• Answer viii: Any real claim to notability? If not, see if it falls into the types of articles that qualify for A7 or A9

• Answer xi: Is it spam? Tag for G11

• Answer x: Check through the sources to see if they are reliable and contain significant coverage. Then, run a WP:BEFORE to look for coverage. If there is not enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines, PROD it if it is uncontroversial deletion, and take to AFD if deletion is possibly controversial.

Part 9

Pls follow the NPP flowchart and read all the reading material provide from Assignment and tools 1-8 and answer the questions below. Please pick 5 articles that meet the notability guidelines (no PROD/BLPPROD/R2/AfD/CSD) from the new pages from Special:NewPagesFeed and follow the NPP flowchart and provide the appropriate answer below (pls place N/A if not applicable). Pick articles that have 3-4 sources for the exercises below. (pls provide link and hist diff)

1

1.

1. Article =
2. Article titles =
3. Images copyright =
4. NPOV =
5. COI / PAID =
6. COPYVIO =
7. Article Class =
8. Short Descr =
9. Categories =
10. Review =
11. Reason (for 10) =
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
				✔ Yes
				✔ Yes
				✔ Yes
				? Unknown
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}}.

2

2.

1. Article =
2. Article titles =
3. Images copyright =
4. NPOV =
5. COI / PAID =
6. COPYVIO =
7. Article Class =
8. Short Descr =
9. Categories =
10. Review =
11. Reason (for 10) =
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
				✔ Yes
				✔ Yes
				✔ Yes
				? Unknown
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}}.

3

3.

1. Article =
2. Article titles =
3. Images copyright =
4. NPOV =
5. COI / PAID =
6. COPYVIO =
7. Article Class =
8. Short Descr =
9. Categories =
10. Review =
11. Reason (for 10) =
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
				✔ Yes
				✔ Yes
				✔ Yes
				? Unknown
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}}.

4

4.

1. Article =
2. Article titles =
3. Images copyright =
4. NPOV =
5. COI / PAID =
6. COPYVIO =
7. Article Class =
8. Short Descr =
9. Categories =
10. Review =
11. Reason (for 10) =
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
				✔ Yes
				✔ Yes
				✔ Yes
				? Unknown
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}}.

5

5.

1. Article =
2. Article titles =
3. Images copyright =
4. NPOV =
5. COI / PAID =
6. COPYVIO =
7. Article Class =
8. Short Descr =
9. Categories =
10. Review =
11. Reason (for 10) =
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
				✔ Yes
				✔ Yes
				✔ Yes
				? Unknown
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}}.

Part 10

Creating article

Please create an article in via Wikipedia:Articles for creation where by the subject is notable, the content adhere to all the requirement and appropriate tagging/labeling/linking as discussed from Assignment 1-8. Some notable subjects could be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/API Women.

Answer: Capture of Sedalia

---

Hog Farm See the final exam questions above. All the best. stay safe. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia - I've been granted NPR through WP:PERM. I mostly plan on working with redirects. Thanks for advising me here. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm Thank you for letting me know. You have only some questions to answer to graduate from the NPPSCHOOL. I would strongly encourage your to finished the questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)