Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Horse Eye's Back (talk | contribs) at 15:15, 19 June 2024 (→Should NPRs perform a WP:BEFORE search before draftifying). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

TutorialDiscussionNew page feed
Reviewers
Curation tool
Suggestions		Coordination
NPP backlog
Articles
11028 ↑111
Oldest article
9 years old
Redirects
704
Oldest redirect
5 months old
Article reviews
1635
Redirect reviews
7065
  • There is a very large articles backlog
  • The articles backlog is growing very rapidly (↑761 since last week)
Shortcut

NPP backlog

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of October 28, 2024

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Basic steps

I got a bot invite to consider joining New Page Patrol. Sounded interesting, so I started reading the tutorial. Came to the section entitled “Reviewing — Basic Steps” and saw this:

Detailed flowchart for reviewing articles

Are you f*** kidding?

If that’s the “Basic Steps”, I can’t imagine what the “Advanced steps” are. Probably require a post-graduate degree.

Sorry, I’m out. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the chart you've embedded is the advanced chart. File:Simplified_NPP_flowchart_for_articles.png is the simple chart. The advanced chart is indeed overwhelming and has been discussed here before, so your reaction is not entirely unwarranted. It's further worth noting that a majority of the steps on the advanced chart are things that, at your experience level, you are probably doing already. The brunt of the work is the notability in my experience. —Sirdog (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“It's further worth noting that a majority of the steps on the advanced chart are things that, at your experience level, you are probably doing already.” Thank you for the compliment, but it’s not warranted. When I expand that chart and try to follow it, no, there’s lots there that I’ve never thought about. In any event, it’s way too dense to be of assistance, to me at least. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: You could have just not accepted the invite. What is the intent of this post? What are you hoping to accomplish? Is this just to complain instead of saying no thank you? But, as mentioned, that's the advanced / overly detailed flowchart. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for thinking that you might want feedback on why someone is turned off by your recruitment drive, instead of encouraged by it to join NPP. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that’s the advanced flowchart, why is it right under a heading that says “Basic steps”? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would want feedback, but your intent when you started this discussion was unclear, largely because of the "Are you f*** kidding?" Do you have any suggestions that you can make that would simplify the process or make it more easy to digest? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 Delete that chart entirely. It is useless.
2 have a short section clearly labelled “tutorial”, and providing a much more focussed discussion of the process, instead of the bloated page that is currently there.
3 keep the tutorial just to the tools, reviewing new pages, and do not BITE.
4 Let them start on new pages only.
5 later on, they can expand into redirects or other types of pages once they’re comfortable with the tools and the process.
6 move all the other stuff to a related page. An editor just starting out NPP doesn’t need to know about patrolling redirects or other pages, or conduct, or unreviewing, or the administrators, or the entire history of the NPP. Have links to those issues on a separate page, not part of the tutorial, , so that a new NPP can learn gradually, without being overwhelmed by all that stuff.
7 make it easy to start!
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 – That's very ignorant. It's very obviously not useless, even if you don't like it.
3 – What does biting have to do with our reviewing guides? We're usually quite helpful to newcomers who have questions.
4 – I'm not certain what you're getting at. The purpose of NPP is to review new pages.
5 – Redirects are actually a lot easier to review, though plenty of people have no interest in reviewing redirects and that's ok.
6 – An editor just starting out NPP doesn’t need to know about patrolling redirects or other pages – We review articles and redirects. These are precisely what users need to know off the bat. Additionally, if we broke everything up into sub pages it would become more difficult to find relevant info. In it's current state, we can more easily find info on the page with the search function. Not saying there aren't improvements that can be made, but splitting things info further subpages doesn't seem beneficial to me.
7 – NPP is easy to start if you focus on your area of interest and have experience in the area in evaluating notability and other issues. It's why we frequently recommend WP:NPPSORT. However, there's simply too much to consider to say, "read this 5 minutes worth of content".
I do appreciate the feedback, but a lot of it seems to be from a place of not fully understanding the role of NPP and how we go about things. Are there improvements we could make? Sure, and we're always trying to do better. But we can't strip downs thing as much as I think you're suggesting. Hey man im josh (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with any guideline page, I think we assume that people read the sections that are relevant to them, i.e. you wouldn't read "reviewing redirects" if you only intend to review articles, and you wouldn't read the history section unless you were interested in it. Splitting these sections off to articles would make the page physically shorter, but I'm not convinced it would make it more readable, and there'd be a cost in terms of maintainability and ease of navigation. – Joe (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a very valid point: Right beside the heading "Basic steps" I see displayed that elaborate flowchart. Yes at the very bottom (below the bottom of my laptop screen), that chart is labelled "Detailed flowchart for reviewing articles", but its positioning makes it look as if it belongs to the "Basic steps" heading.
Could someone perhaps produce a simple diagram which corresponds to the outline "Basic steps", to insert in the tutorial at that stage, to avoid frightening off newcomers who are hoping to help? Maybe a version of File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png, but appropriate for including in the tutorial.
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz@Hey man im josh: MrSB's comment seemed to be constructive feedback, albeit worded understandably strongly. PamD 07:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That flowchart is under "basic steps" to avoid all the figures under "reviewing articles" from clumping together, nothing more. – Joe (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But placement is the message. The message I got was that chart was the “basic steps” I would need to master to join NPP. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I agree that flowcharts are not the best way to present this information, but the actual policies and processes the flowchart describes are the bare minimum you need to know to patrol new pages. NPP deals with all new articles, and therefore every possible topic and every possible content problem; there's a limit to how far we can simplify that. – Joe (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The flowchart was always meant to be something to use when you 'got lost' or weren't sure what to do. Flowcharts aren't meant to be something that you memorize, but rather something that you use to determine what your next step should be. In practice, the flowchart is relatively simple, because you will NEVER use the whole chart for reviewing an article; you will follow a specific path through the chart and end up at one or more end points after doing a number of tasks. Does it work for everyone? No. No method works for everyone. But for some people, this is an awesome tool. Is it intimidating? You could argue that, but for me the flowchart removes the "I don't know what to do next" from reviewing in 99% of cases. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 22:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that chart is both very useful and also misleading. I think very useful because it covers practically all of the potential tasks and practically all of the potential scenarios. I'd rather have that than a chart that is missing things where I'd have to spend hours scratching my head trying to learn what's missing and learning it rather take a few extra minutes to read that big chart. On the flip side, if every NPP'er did a super thorough job on every task and possibility, we'd have a 2,000,000 article backlog instead of a 14,000 article one. Or get discouraged feeling guilty for not spending 1 hour per article doing a super thorough job on every task and possibility. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There diverse learning styles for Wikipedia's (steep) learning curve, and too it's good practice to have a formalized template, i.e. boilerplate. I look at the simple chart and see a blizzard of acronyms; I look at the advanced chart and see a clickable Venn diagram. (Click on this "Yes" and a section becomes moot.) Both the simple and the advanced charts serve their abstruse purpose, but basically one has to learn to learn. kencf0618 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flowcharts

The complaint above was not expressed very nicely but does hit on a relatively frequent point of feedback about Wikipedia:New pages patrol, which is that the various flowcharts and diagrams might put people off more than they help.

There are currently only two flowcharts left on the page. To help decide whether they should be there, could we have a quick straw poll on whether current NPPers find them useful or not? – Joe (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified

Do you find Novem Linguae's File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png useful? Or did you, when you were new to reviewing?

Detailed

Do you find Insertcleverphrasehere's File:NPP flowchart.svg useful? Or did you, when you were new to reviewing?

Discussion

Is that the right question? Should the question be "When you were new to NPP, did you find the flowcharts useful?", as MrSB's point is that they are offputting for new or potential NPP volunteers. Whether they are useful as an aide-memoire for experienced NPPers is a different question. PamD 13:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're probably right, amended accordingly. This also isn't a very scientific exercise, since anyone really put off by the flowcharts probably isn't watching this talk page. But I can't see a way around that. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think I used any flowcharts but I certainly don't object to their existence. (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a note functionality

{{Sentnote-NPF}} still includes the advice to sign posts with tildes, which is unneeded now that that is done automatically by the reply tool. It also asks for a ping on reply to the editor who left the note. We should be able to take this out as well by having the Page Curation tool by automatically subscribe the reviewer to the section. How would that be changed? Sdkb talk 17:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the removal of the four tildes or the echo notifications option. I think it's best to leave in. By definition, the project deals with a lot of newbies and sometimes, as much as you expect them to follow instructions or use things normally, they break. New users may just respond by editing the talk page (or any other manner possible). In this case, I think leaving extra instruction isn't hurting anyone, and in the event that they do leave the four tildes, the reply box signs once only anyways. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also taken to leaving <!-- copy this as it appears rendered on the page, not from the edit screen--> as a note between the <code><nowiki> </nowiki></code> tags because I've seen people copy <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> right in their replies. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
leaving extra instruction isn't hurting anyone This is a really common (and understandable) belief — and it's 100% wrong. It's the main reason our guidance is filled with an impenetrable maze of WP:CREEP. And a wide body of usability research shows that what it causes is not for users to read and understand the extra instruction, but rather to go "that's too long" and not read any of the instruction, thus missing out on the more relevant instruction that they actually needed. Sdkb talk 19:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the reply tool on by default for all editors now? I've lost track of what's a script and what's a gadget etc. – Joe (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "reply tool" is mw:Extension:DiscussionTools, which is a MediaWiki extension. Good question about whether it's on by default for everyone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Talk pages project § Deployment status states that DT the Reply tool should be on for everyone by default. Whether or not everyone is actually using it is a separate question, though. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edited. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we certain that most or all the new editors replying to this message will be using DiscussionTools and not the source editor? Anyone using the source editor would still benefit from the advice to sign their posts and ping the reviewer. Not against removing the advice, but just want to make sure that the assumption that most or all new users now reply using DiscussionTools is correct.
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T329346
Getting PageTriage to auto subscribe the user to user talk sections that PageTriage creates is phab:T329346. I wrote a patch for this in another tool recently, and have plans to eventually roll it out to Twinkle and PageTriage. Will leave some notes in the ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TFOLWP - translation attribution

WP:TFOLWP requires attribution in an edit summary (in a prescribed form: "Content in this edit is translated from the existing [source language] Wikipedia article at [[:[source language code]:Exact name of [source language] article]]; see its history for attribution.") of articles translated from Wikipedias in other languages in order to preserve edit history, copyright and so on. When articles are translated using the translation tool, a much shorter edit summary note is added automatically: 'Created by translating the page "[[:[source language code]:Exact name of [source language] article]]'. Is this an adequate replacement for the WP:TFOLWP wording, or should that be added separately? Ingratis (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it provides the source project and page name it should be fine. The precise formats on that page are just recommendations. Could add a {{Translated page}} to the talk page as well, but that's optional. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia. Those folks are more likely to be experts on copyright attribution. By the way, link to translation tool, or instructions on how to open it? If you want to get its edit summary changed, we should figure out where its code is located. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mw:Content translation – Joe (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that's a suggested rather than a prescribed form. The attribution requirements of our license are notoriously fuzzy, with the only hard requirement being that it is done "the best of [one's] ability using the information available". As such, I don't think we need so sweat these differences in wording. – Joe (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best solution is to update the translation tool, imv (t · c) buidhe 19:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These things are often contained in local pages that can be edited by admins... the trouble is finding them. – Joe (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I shouldn’t really be here as I’m not an NPR but) Going by translatewiki, it looks like the relevant local page may be MediaWiki:Cx-publish-summary (in addition to two similar-looking messages at MediaWiki:Cx-sx-publish-summary & MediaWiki:Cx-sx-publish-lead-section-summary). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks all - that's v helpful. Best, Ingratis (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Drafts - proposed split

Information icon There is currently a discussion at WT:Drafts regarding a proposed split of WP:Drafts. The thread is WT:Drafts#Split into help page and guideline. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio tool problem

Hello y'all. Today I encountered the same problem like few days back, the copyvio tool on the toolbar is not working anymore. Are y'all experiencing the same thing as well? The error is similar with few days ago - it stuck at "Calculating copyvio percentage". Pinging @DannyS712 as the creator of this great script and @DreamRimmer and @Novem Linguae that assisted on this problem last time. Have a pleasant day! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. When using the copyvio tool via the user script you're talking about, I'm getting 502 Bad Gateway.
  2. When using the copyvio tool directly (example), I am getting An error occurred while using the search engine (Google Error: HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests). Note: there is a daily limit on the number of search queries the tool is allowed to make. You may repeat the check without using the search engine.
  3. When using the API (exact URL here), I am getting {"status": "error", "error": {"code": "search_error", "info": "An error occurred while using the search engine; try reloading or setting 'use_engine' to 0"}}.
Quite the assortment of errors. 2 and 3 look related, but 1 may be separate. Hmm.
Can you try it again tomorrow and let us know if there's still a problem? 2 and 3 should clear up tomorrow. The daily limit resets daily. This may or may not fix 1. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has worked well for now, thank you very much! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPE sock with NPR blocked

I'm notifying editors here that I've indefinitely blocked User:Loksmythe and revoked their NPR/autopatrolled user rights-- they're a likely sock of User:Plot Spoiler, who was indefinitely blocked for suspected UPE. I'm not sure how much scrutiny their reviews warrant, although I'm just now seeing they reviewed some articles created by hoaxer User:Fad Ariff, who was also likely involved in some paid editing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up @Moneytrees. We've been making an effort to track this sort of thing at User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Advanced permission holders connected to UPE. I'll add it to the list once I'm back on PC if no one does before me. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh That's an interesting page, I've added them myself now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Moneytrees! The more data we get the more useful it will be. Though, ideally, we wouldn't have more data to add to the page lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio reminder

I've just added a line to the NPP instructions that reminds patrollers to check the original language with Earwig, if an article is or may be a translation. If you only check the en-wiki version, you will likely not notice the copyright violation. Translated copyvio is still copyvio! -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes its a good line to add--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good reminder! I’ve seen more and more translations lately. ZsinjTalk 00:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Earwig won't check stuff like Google books or Internet Archive (books or websites). I've seen quite a few copyvios from those sources being let through recently, even some with obvious text formatting issues that should have been a red flag. For example, words with hyphens in the middle where there aren't normally hyphens is a clear sign that the text was copied from a digital scan of a book. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback / re-reviews

Hello folks. I'm just over a week into NPP-ing, and would welcome any feedback or re-reviews of my patrolling. You'll see a couple of occasions where I've corrected myself as I go, but keen to learn from anything I've missed. (FWIW, am planning NPP school too.) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider linking a specific article you'd like us to check out. Is less brainpower to check one article rather than several, so you'd be more likely to get a response. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Novem Linguae, that's fair! There's no specific ones I remain uncertain about, so my request was more "if you're doing re-reviews anyway as part of the backlog drive, mine are a good place to start" :)
But will be sure to share if any specifics come up. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do moved pages need to be reviewed?

Everytime I move an article from one title to the other, I get a watchlist notification of the page being reviewed again by another editor. Why does the page need re-review? Is the reviewed flag strictly dependent on the article title, or is there a way out of this using wikitext and categorisation? I'm not sure how many newly created articles are moves, but I suspect it's just wasting volunteer time.

My suggestion is to change the tools used for Page moves so any moves automatically add "reviewed" status to the new article if the old page was already marked as reviewed. Soni (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni: Moves get reviewed because not every move should actually be made. I usually spend my time in the redirect queue and I've seen move vandalism, really contentious moves that shouldn't be made without consensus, etc, even if the most of them tend to be fine. You run into a similar situation with regular redirects – most are fine, some meet speedy deletion, others should be discussed at RfD. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense. I was considering 'reviews' strictly in terms of article quality but this helps me understand NPP much better. Thank you. Soni (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Always feel free to ask when you're confused about something, it's how one gets to learn. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up Q, what's autopatrolled and will getting that userright allow me to not see a bunch of review notifications each time I do a move/make a new page? A quick browse at Wikipedia:Autopatrolled doesn't tell me clearly enough if I qualify for it, I just would like to see fewer watchlist notifications.
I want to say I've never seen these new shiny toys before, but my memory is probably shoddy. Soni (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So autopatrolled is a right that basically means that anytime you create a page (or move one), it isn't normally in the NPP queue (there's a specific setting where people can see creations by autopatrolled users but people don't usually look at it because the backlog is bad enough as it is). A similar process (that involves notifications because it's patrolled by bot and is limited to redirects) exists at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. The autopatrolled right is really only given to people who have a history of creating at least 25 "clean" articles (so no maintenance tags) and don't have a history of other issues that would cause concern (examples: copyright violations or a non-negligible amount of articles deleted through AfD or other venues). Does that help clear things up for you? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I don't think I create that many articles so I guess I'll live with a few extra notifications for now. Thanks Soni (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soni: Just to be clear, it's not the article that's getting reviewed (the reviewed status moves with it), it's the new redirect you created at the old title. NPP also reviews redirects. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably not an issue, but could someone let me know if a reference starting with "chrome extension" is safe to open? I think it is going to load special software to view an unusually formatted link and this doesn't sound like something I want to do. See Msunduzi Municipal Library. Thanks and greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  14:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone copied the wrong url. I've fixed the url to what was intended. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a PDF, but unfortunately it is downloading at an abysmal rate and I can't yet verify how big it is. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender, Foreign Sources, and WP:MAY24

For WP:MAY24 (I'd prefer the format WP:MAY2024) I decided to focus on the category Women inasmuch as theirs is a historically underrepresented category. On the one hand articletopic:women incategory:"Articles lacking sources from December 2009" seemed like a good chunk. On the other hand Christian Albert, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, et al. are guys. On the gripping hand some articles are sans references in English because the only references are other languages, and sometimes in one only. What is the policy? kencf0618 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's WP:MAY24/WP:MAY2024? I think those are both redlinks. Also what's the question exactly? I am not sure I understand. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024. – Hilst [talk] 10:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kencf0618: Are you looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles? This is the talk page of Wikipedia:New pages patrol – articles from December 2009 are far outside our purview.
Though incidentally, it doesn't matter what language sources are in, as long as there are sources: see WP:NONENG. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kencf0618 It's a useful help to readers if references in other languages also use the "trans-title=" field to add the title translated into English, so readers can get a feel for what is being cited. Similarly, if the ref includes a quote, "trans-quote=" should be used to show readers the English translation of the quote. PamD 13:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For our (backlog drive) purposes then one or two foreign references would suffice, preferably to reference works. Thanks, all. kencf0618 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it depends whether the purpose in editing is to tick boxes for a backlog drive or to improve the experience for the reader. PamD 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mutually exclusive! I like getting citation fu right, and translating (say) the title of a foreign reference work is a simple matter. kencf0618 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did take the point that you are on the wrong notice board? Ingratis (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request and leaving pages unreviewed

Hi all. I've been granted the NPP permissions at the beginning of this month, and while I have not been able to be as active as I had hoped to, I've done a few reviews now. If anyone was willing to review my patrol log and offer any feedback, it would be much appreciated.

But aside from that, I have a question. I've read nearly all the resources regarding NPP, including all the links found on WP:NPP and my understanding of the scope of the role is to a) quickly identify and take action against any egregious content being added (spam, attack pages, copyvio) and b) assess whether pages that don't fall within the scope of criterion a) are likely to survive a deletion discussion if they were to be nominated (if the answer is yes, then the page should be marked reviewed), and to improve them to meet this standard where possible, or to list them for CSD/PROD/AFD where not possible. I've mainly based my decision-making on c:File:NPP flowchart.svg.
Yet, I seem to encounter quite a number of unreviewed pages where experienced NPP patrollers have clearly looked at the page, and even made improvements (adding categories, tagging, other improvements) and yet chosen not to mark the page reviewed where in my estimation, the page is sufficiently good to mark reviewed. This is giving me pause, as it is making me questioning my judgement. I read the page, look at relevant info, decide that the page should be reviewed, and then I see evidence to indicate that somebody who is clearly much more experienced than me seemingly didn't agree with my assessment.
Can anyone shed some light on why experienced reviewers seem to often leave pages unreviewed? Am I misunderstanding the criterion/decision-making for when a page should be marked reviewed?

Sorry about the wall of text, and any feedback or input would be much appreciated. Melmann 20:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is common to leave borderline pages in the queue for a more experienced reviewer with a grasp of how AFDs usually go in that topic area to review. However if you're comfortable with your GNG/SNG/source analysis/notability analysis for an article, feel free to take appropriate action (AFD, mark as reviewed, etc.) You can also AFD a small number of articles you're less comfortable with and pay attention to the AFD outcomes to help self-calibrate.
Feel free to link to specific borderline pages here if you'd like a more detailed response. If anyone was willing to review my patrol log and offer any feedback, it would be much appreciated. is really broad and you are more likely to get useful feedback if you link one or two articles. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One other possibility on those unreviewed pages is when the NPP'er tags it for issues which could cause it to fail NPP, to give article creator(s) a chance to fix the issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list of older articles

Does NPP only display new articles up to 4 months old? Is it possible to get a complete list of articles created before 4-5 months, sorted by WikiProject or even creation date? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib, you can use Wikipedia:NPPSORT and NPP Browser. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can use Special:NewPagesFeed -> set filters. There's a date range picker in there that should help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work

Important as the NPP is, I've been doing my own thing as I go along. That includes NPP, but have not been keeping track of my stats. You won't see me posting over here much, but I want to say that the NPP is vital. Imagine my surprise when I looked at the XTools count of 1,192 NPP in my time on Wikipedia. My take, is that if a new article can be saved through NPP, then we did something worth while. NPP is often vital for assisting and retaining new editors. You all do an excellent job. — Maile (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove my NPP flag

Remove my NPP flag, I'm done dealing with nonsense like this [1]. If a promo article that ledes with statements like "...where contradictory forms bombard our thoughts and gazes." and is authored by an account that was blocked as a "Spam / advertising-only account",[2] doesn't neet G11 I obviously don't know what I'm doing and should walk away. @Bbb23: congrats you've finally driven me off, you might have some suggestions for how to fix the backlog at AfD and NPP since they are driving off participants.  // Timothy :: talk  16:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the permission per your request. I realize that it is probably quite frustrating to have a csd nom declined, but if you ever change your mind and wish to participate in NPP again, feel free to let me know. Sometimes the heat of the moment can make things more intense. I doubt Bbb23's intention was to drive away AfD/NPP participants. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Bbb23 but I decline CSD-tagged articles fairly often when I disagree with the tagging, it seems like an inappropriate criteria or if it looks like PROD or AFD would be a more suitable form of deletion. In this case, this article was nominated for deletion consideration (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viraj Mithani). I never once thought of a decline as "driving off" an editor, we just have differing understandings of a particular CSD criteria. G11 is one criteria where differences seem most common, what seems "promotional" to one editor might not look like advertising/spam to the admin or editor reviewing the tagging. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with @Liz on if it looks like PROD or AFD would be a more suitable form of deletion. If an article meets the speedy deletion criteria the community has decided by consensus that it doesn't want to spend more of its time and instead prefers a lighterweight process. This is separate from "this article doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, but may be appropriately deleted via PROD or AfD" as is the case for many A7 declines, for instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well: WP:NOTBURO. And I note it was speedily deleted all the same. Which somewhat exonerates TimothyBlue. It also confirms the view that if admins are to be allowed to decide what is/is not to be deleted or kept, they should have some article-writing experience first. ——Serial Number 54129 18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to what Clover wrote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I saw the original note here and went to check on the article. It was a mess (such language! as @TimothyBlue: had noted) which I first tried to clean up and then, searching for references, found that there really was no there, there. So I sent it to AFD. Unanimous !votes to delete, including those who were in favour of it being speedied. In the end, it was deleted. Kind of wish Timothy had had a bit of a thicker skin, because they were right in essence after all, and I hope they choose to come back to NPP. After all, I think one needs the hide of a rhinoceros and the heart of a dove to stick around here for any length of time. Alls well that ends, I suppose. Geoff | Who, me? 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-attributed translations

Just a reminder to check for non-attributed translations when reviewing, especially on longer articles. They are more common than you might think. Wikidata and Google are very helpful for checking if an article in another language exists. If there is an article on another Wikipedia, you can use Google Translate to see if the content matches the English article. If it does, add an edit summary attribution (similar to this one: Content in this edit is translated from the existing LANGUAGE Wikipedia article at code:Exact name of article; see its history for attribution.) and warn the translator with {{uw-translation}}. If the content translated makes up a significant portion of the new article, consider adding {{Translated page|language code|article name}} to the talk page. C F A 💬 02:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clearfrienda Thanks for pointing this out. I would go as far as saying that, major problems warranting CSD or DRAFTIFY aside, this is the main issue I flag at NPP. Perhaps a button to easily address the issue (dummy edit to provide attribution + {{translated page}} in talk page + inform the editor of the violation) should be included in the Page Curation tool? Broc (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Besides notability issues, non-attributed translations are the most common problem I encounter during reviews. It's actually very time-consuming to check if an alternate-language article exists, if the English version is a non-attributed translation, then add the dummy edit, warn the user, and add the notice to the talk page. I assume this is why a lot of NPP reviewers often skip this step and a lot of translations go unnoticed. I would support an addition to Page Curation but someone is probably better off building a user script (like MoveToDraft) since tool changes are much more complicated to implement. C F A 💬 16:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a starter version at User:Clearfrienda/scripts/AttributeTranslation. Less work than I thought, actually. Courtesy ping: Broc if you're interested. C F A 💬 02:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing that script - works like a dream! Josey Wales Parley 19:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting this section. Technically, the text snippet given above (as described at WP:TFOLWP) is appropriate for use as an edit summary only in the same edit which adds translated text to the article. When missing attribution is discovered later, then the instructions and model text to use can be found at WP:RIA. Further, if you don't have time or don't wish to add the missing attribution yourself or are unable to because it's not clear where the content was translated from, you can flag the article with {{Unattributed translation}}. Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of article info viewing questions

Is there a way to make the curation toolbar show up on a reviewed article? (for example in order to see/use the "metadata" button)


There is one way I know to find a previous deletion discussion for certain cases. Which is to hit the "previously deleted" button on the page feed. But that only works if it's in the new page feed and then sometimes doesn't work then (e.g. As-Salam al-Amiri (Kuwait) even though it says "previously deleted". Is there a general way to see previous deletion discussions? North8000 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks North8000 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a link titled "Add to the New Pages Feed" in the tools section on the left of the page. That should do the trick and make the page curation bar show up. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, it also unreviews the article. So only do that if you want to unreview the article. I don't think there's currently a way to display the toolbar on a reviewed article that has fallen out of the feed. For example, if you wanted to place maintenance tags.
For the use case of previous deletions, I like the user scripts User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js (adds "prev del" and "prev afd" links by the article title if found) and User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/DetectG4G5.js (displays alerts at the top of the page if it's a likely CSD G4 or G5 candidate). I also make the deletionFinder notifications more red using the code in User:Novem Linguae/common.css, line 1. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that and presumed that it unreviewed the article. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"experience moving pages"

Would anyone complain if I removed "Have experience moving pages in accordance with relevant guidelines" from WP:NPPCRITERIA? Experience with page moves certainly doesn't hurt, but most NPP-related titling issues are straightforward enough to be learned on the job, and it's not like WP:PERM/NPP requests are being declined as "not done; not enough experience moving pages". I certainly wouldn't want otherwise qualified editors to think they have to go spend a month or two at WP:RM before applying. (The criterion was apparently just copied from the page mover criteria, so I'm not sure how much thought went into it in the first place.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've long said I don't use this as a criteria when evaluating whether to grant someone the permission or not. I look to make sure they're not making moronic moves, but I don't expect everybody to have all of the naming conventions memorized. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to have but a newcomer can still function without it Josey Wales Parley 14:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard cases

Is there a board/list for "hard" or "problematic" patrol cases that might require more eyes/more time to get to a consensus and get properly fixed up. Examples being Sergii Ivanov and Volodymyr Petrov (same creator), which are well created BLPs but filled with more challenging references/sources, and with some very tilted language. I don't feel that just tagging them is enough here? Or do I use the general noticeboards? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling this out. I left some notes on the creator's talk page at User talk:Zwyntar na boloti. There are also a large number of Facebook and YouTube sources, which can easily be seen with a citation highlighter userscript. Since this is a BLP, we should probably delete all the Facebook and YouTube citations and their associated text before we make any other decisions about the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks Novem Linguae. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umakant Bhalerao

I have just blocked Umakant Bhalerao, a reviewer since 2020, for undisclosed paid editing. Admins are welcome to email me for evidence, but the short version is that Umakant Bhalerao was marking articles about Indian corporations and businesspeople as reviewed in a way that made clear there was illegitimate coördination going on. The vast majority of his reviews are fine, but the ones in that topic area would definitely benefit from a second look. I've made a partial list of such articles at User:Extraordinary Writ/Articles to review; I don't know if we want to go over them individually or just put them back into the queue, but any help would be appreciated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure about the UPE part, putting them back in the queue is probably the most efficient way to handle it. Then we don't forget to review any, and we spread the re-review workload. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I often saw him reviewing Indian cinema-related articles, and all of those reviews were good. It's disappointing to learn that he was involved in undisclosed paid editing. I will shortly take a look at his reviews. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall a recent "scandalous" news article where I believe they were accused of being extremely dubious in a manner I cannot quite recall. I also cannot recall where on enwiki I saw those details. Others may recall. I am reminded that there is no smoke without fire.
Might I suggest that, while each awaits review they be flagged with the {{UPE}} banner? Passing that review will/may allow that banner to be removed.
Putting them back in the queue is annoying, but ideal for efficiency. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 04:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to track this down. This may be a breadcrumb trail. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity/Archive#28 May 2022 is one mention: There is another WP:MEAT group led by Umakant Bhalerao, operating similar to DMySon's interests (politics, geography, etc.) and their reviewing style/timecard match hints that they are most probably employed by German Kity company, so listing Umakant Bhalerao and their probable socks Michael_goms, Anthony Masc, Wikibablu, Jessy_lever, Aaliyahshaikh01, and Siddhart_pandey after this and this discussion here. Please do a through checkuser against these accounts and I strongly suspect there are probably many more such accounts (probably with reviewing rights). Balchandra Upendra (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC). I am searching for more. I make no comment upon the content of the allegation. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have failed. I am sure it was in 2024, posted by an IP editor, possibly from a competing UPE group, and linked to a media article. Editors discounted it at the time. I am pretty certain it was to a "noticeboard" in the broadest sense of the word. @Extraordinary Writ, you may have a better recollection than I do? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting closer, though from 2022: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 190#The unearthing of massive UPE operation. There is also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 165#TamilMirchi from 2020. Neither of these are the one I remember. Someone with a better spade than I have may enjoy the digging! I have run out of time for a couple of weeks. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen the SPI and the COIN post, but I'm not aware of anything beyond that...maybe you're thinking of something else? If you do find it, let me know (or email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org if it involves an off-wiki news story). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ There's something that niggles. The off-will media story names three editors. I just can't find it. Perhaps your colleagues who also answer the paid-en email address can place it? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thoroughly checked these articles and added some to the queue. I think all the remaining articles on this list should also be added back to the queue for a fresh review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should NPRs perform a WP:BEFORE search before draftifying

I recently had a disagreement with @Jeraxmoira (at User talk:Jeraxmoira) regarding how a particular review, that of Draft:Takhteshwar_Temple was conducted. I am of the opinion that they should have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and simply tagged the page as needing more sources (or AFDed the page if no reliable sources were found since the article was over a month old). However, Jeraxmoira contends that NPRs are not required to do a BEFORE search before draftifying "unimportant/ low-interest" pages within 90 days. I would like to hear a third opinion/other opinions on this. Is one approach better/the accepted norm over the other? Also, should NPRs conduct a BEFORE search before draftifying pages that have been around in mainspace for a significant amount of time? Sohom (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard requirement and, if you think it through, it wouldn't make sense to have one. If a reviewer does a WP:BEFORE-style search for sources, there are two possible outcomes:
  1. They find enough sources to support in article, in which case they shouldn't move it to draft – they should add the sources to the article
  2. They don't find enough sources to support an article, in which case they shouldn't move it to draft – they should nominate it for deletion
So either way a WP:BEFORE → draft workflow doesn't make sense.
I do think it's good practice to follow WP:BEFORE if you have doubts about the availability of sources for a topic, but it's far too time-consuming to say NPPers "should" do so. If I have doubts about sourcing but don't have time to follow up on them, I usually tag the article with {{more sources}} and/or {{notability}} and move on, rather than move it to draftspace where it will get less attention, but a lot of people do the latter. – Joe (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more possible outcomes than that, for example if the search uncovers sources which appear to contain signficant coverage of the topic but are not accessible due to paywalls, not in local library holdings, etc then the article should either be kept without adding those sources directly to the article or draftified. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could still add them as further reading or on the talk page. The point is that if you've established that sufficient sourcing probably exists (albeit behind a paywall or whatever), draftifying it on the basis of sourcing problems would be disingenuous of the reviewer and unfair to the creator. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't add them to the further reading section unless you've actually seen their contents, yes you can go to the talk page but thats not adding it to the article. The point is that there are way more than two possible outcomes, I also don't see how draftifying it if you can't access the sources would be disingenuous of the reviewer and unfair to the creator... That again seems to assume a very limited scope which doesn't withstand basic scrutiny. For example with BLPs draftication can be a nice way to both preserve the privacy of a subject when you aren't sure if they're really notable but also gives people with access to sources time to improve the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't draftily for notability. If I've already done a before search, there's no use wasting the creator's time improving a non notable article; it should go straight to AfD. if the topic is found to be notable, just poorly sourced, adding a couple good sources and stubbing is less likely to get opposed than drafitifaction. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification, for me, is rarely ever mostly not based on notability. It's about whether a page, in its current state, is fit for main space. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a little based on notability? That is if a topic is clearly not notable it should be deleted since no amount of time/improvement would fix that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know... Maybe I should have thought more before I spoke because there's a level of nuance to it that I ignored in my reply, so thanks for calling me out @Barkeep49. I've tweaked my reply a bit, but I agree with you. Draftification is not a backdoor for deletion and its primary purpose is/should be to give people a place to work on pages with a subject that, with some cleanup or effort, may belong in main space at some point. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO (not that I do it, I work in the "older than three months" part of the cue) it could be based on "non-established" notability rather than notability. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: I don't particularly like to do that myself. I usually stick to draftifying the pages with serious problems that make them unfit for main space and use it for only the most obvious of cases. If the notability is simply unclear and draftification might not be beneficial, I'd rather send it to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: (or others) Curious, how would you handle this common case?: Article is less than three months old, is about somebody who would commercially benefit from having an article (artist, performer, band, web personality etc.) , does not meet any SNG criteria, pretty clearly has no or insufficient GNG sources in the article, and a quick web search didn't turn up any. Your first guess is that they won't meet GNG, but it would take a lot of work to confirm that guess. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are many other parameters to be considered even in common cases i.e. COI, UPE, Sock etc., IMO
  • (For the above specified case) If there are insufficient GNG sources in the article and I believe they won't meet GNG, I would send it to draft with a custom note pointing to the relevant notability guidelines and asking for more sources (This process cuts down the time of reviewers doing WP:BEFORE rather than the author). If it is moved back to main space without addressing the notability concern, I would check WP:BEFORE and send it to AfD.
Personally, I believe draftification gives the author a second chance before it is sent to AfD and it shouldn't be a big deal because the draftify notice clearly asks the author to move it to mainspace or submit it for review once the draft is ready. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal protocol is: If you're confident of COI/UPE, draftify. If there are zero sources, BLPPROD for person, draftify for band/other. Otherwise, WP:BEFORE and then AFD if insufficient sources found. Checking the first page Google News, Google Books, and whatever other searches you feel are appropriate for a WP:BEFORE hopefully wouldn't take longer than a couple minutes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That happens to be my overall protocol as well, since I patrol more back of the queue stuff I have rarely found a use-case for draftifying pages over AFD or just tagging it for improvement. This discussion has been a bit of a eye opener and a primer on how other NPPers handle draftification tho. Sohom (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a central point of my example is finding a way (= give them feedback and some time) to let the creator to do a deeper search for GNG sources than a NPP'er can do with limited time, where the NPPer's guess is that those sources probably don't exist. And draftifying is one way to do this, another is to tag it and leave an explanatory note and leave it unreviewed to be reviewed at a later date. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't draftify because I work the older part of the que where it is not an option. But if I did, I would use it for the example I gave. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My response in general for a GNG-dependent article would be the same as Joe Roe's. A few more notes: For a GNG-dependent article IMO an article creator should find GNG sources, and it's more reasonable to expect one of the zillions of article creators to do that work than to say that an overworked NPP'er "should" do that. Draftifying might be one way to set it up for that, so would tagging it which would typically give the creator time to find and add them, or after that time lapse to probably go to AFD if they don't. Regarding this particular article I might have passed it is an edge-case under Ngeo, but that's just me. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the onus on new article creators is to provide sources, particularly to pass WP:GNG. I do think it's perfectly proper to draftify articles with no sources/too few sources/no notability (it's polite to do a quick search, but that's not requirement for 'a full BEFORE') - I've had a number of examples where the creator has worked (in peace) on the draft and it's gone back to mainspace and I have been happy to review those submissions on request to bypass the queue. And that's the process working AFAICS... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers&oldid=1229937397"