User:Cassiopeia/AfC/Interstellarity

Below are the differences between AfC and NPP.

#	Topic	NPP	AfC	Note
1	Review	Follow NPP chart	GNG & SSN notability and content policy within what provided in the draft article
2	Source	Not judging by article sources but what is available outside the article	Based on what indicated in the draft article	NPP - sources will only be included by interested editor to support the content claimed which would take years or no sources are added at all NPP - reviewer can moved article to draft page under WP:NPPDRAFT if no source or only dependent/not relaible sources presented in the article AfC - editor who input the info responsible to provide source - inline with WP:PROVEIT or WP:BURDEN verifiability guidelines
3	spam/promo/COPVIO/attacked page/vandalism/nonsense	via CSD	via CSD
4	CSD A7/A9/A11	via CSD - go through admin	reject - reviewer decision
5	Question of meeting notability	via PROP or AfD	decline (but not reject)
6	Merge/redirect	tag on page	inform editor
7	user right min requirement -	at least 90 days, and have made at least 500 not-deleted edits to mainspace. no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months experience with moving pages	at least 90 days, and have made at least 500 not-deleted edits to mainspace. requires experience with deletion	both given by admin
8	Process	via page curator	via script
9	Reviewers/Patroller in need of help	via NPPSCHOOL	via AfC talk page	NPPSCHOOL - enroll the program and guided by experience editor (trainer) AfC talk page - New or experienced editors get help from other experienced editors (A robust talk page)
10	Diffs	1.accept upon credible claim of significance even without sources if sources could be found by reviewer - place the responsibility reviewers to look for sources on behalf of the creator 2.accept and tag NPOV 3.No communication or advise by reviewer 4.Only one reviewer but if found unsoundly accepted, other reviewer can unreview the page 5.Page would be indexed by after 3 months in NPP even the page has not been reviewed 6.Reviews do the tagging (unreferenced/stub/improve cat) 7.Review AfC approved article unless the AfC reviewer hold both AfC and NPP user rights 8.Design for autoconfirmed user. Any PAID editors' article need to move to "Draft" space (AfC review) irregardless how many edits or page created by the PAID editors in the past. 9. NPP discussion page - mostly among reviewers	1.accepted if independent, reliable sources present in the article - place responsibility on creator to provide sources so they would comply to Wikipedia content policy 2.decline if NPOV (accordance with WP:Content policy) 3.Automated recline message and reveiwer's comment on draft page to creator on how to improve/what is need 4.Multiple reviewers could review a page if the page is previously decline 5.Could be G13 for stale drafts after 6 months or postponing G13 6.Reviewers do the tagging (cat, Wikiproject, article class assessment) 7.No need to review NPP page. 8.Design for new user who is not familiar with Wikipedia, but autoconfirmed editor would move drat to main at will where AfC review will be replaced by NPP review. 9. AfC help desk for creator seeking help

Interstellarity since we are waiting for 3 more AfD to be closed, which would be within the next few days, here I have placed the differences of NPP and AfD starting with part 1 (4 parts in total). Once you have read the above, do welcome to post your questions below. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have read the above. I found that AFC has its own flowchart File:Flow chart for AFC 3.1.png. Would you like me to use that for the purposes of the course? Interstellarity (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity There is no AfC Academy/School at the moment. I post the above for you, so you would know the different betwee AfC and NPP review where by they have different school of thought/criteria/culture. Do you have any question of the above two pointS? if you do then fire your questions. If not then I will post part 2 (few month points) on my next edit. The NPP & AfC flow chart will come on later part - even thought both have flow charts but the review process in AfC is driven by GNG/SSN and content policies. Example if a mma fighter have multiple sources in new page, NPP reviewer will click review, but in AfC, they will also look at SSN criteria. In a way, AfC articles are harder to get approve. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thank you. That is clear to me. I'm ready for Part 2. Interstellarity (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity Pls see 3-6 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Read and understood. Interstellarity (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity OK. Here you could see the differences between NPP and AfC flowchart - both start with CSD but NPP will let reviewer to a specific redirects, but AfC will review the article based on Content policy and notability guidelines. In AfC we dont AfD/PROP (A7/A9/A11) but reject (There are two choices in AfC reject/decline and in most of the cases we decline - be very sure if you use reject option) For redirect/merge we cont tag them but inform the creator. See above point 7 to 10 and let me know if you have any questions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have read it. I have one question. What is the difference between declining and rejecting a draft? Interstellarity (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Part 4: Questions[edit]

Interstellarity Look at point 4 an 5 on the table as well as what Wikipedia is Not - that would consider a reject. Be very careful to reject a draft page as it is done by reviewer and it does not go through an admin. If a AfC reviewer rejected many articles, it will raise the attention and the AfC reviewer work will be checked by the AfC coordinator and their AfC reviewer right will be removed due to incompetent of their reviewing job if they found the rejected draft articles were wrongly reviewed. AfC talk page is very a placed to raise your questions and seek help from other AfC reviewers. Ask anything for help if needed. Go ahead to apply for AfC user right and note to them you have graduated from NPPSCHOOL - provide link. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Applied HERE. Interstellarity (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I got granted AFC rights. Interstellarity (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity It depends on the admin and they might check you work on NPP reveiw to determine if you are qualifed. You might want to ping the admin who reject your first application to let them know you have reapply. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I just got AFC rights. Do I still need to ping the admin who rejected my first application? Interstellarity (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity No, you dont need to do so. You should have "AFC review beta' under "More" drop-down list on the top menu. When you click on it, there a few option, accept, reject/decline, under review and comment. Again very careful to use reject unless it is "blatantly, unequivocally" meet reject criteria. Also in AfC, SSN is used beside GNG - leave personal with specific comments and link if possible on decline draft, this is to help the new editors to familiarize with Wikipedia guidelines and let them know why the draft is decline and what they could do about it. You can seek help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation as other experience reviewers will help you on any question or doubtful draft article when you not sure what to do or not sure it passes notability guidelines. They very help so do use the service there instead mark/review the article incorrectly or if you prefer you can just ask me for help too. Also, take you time to do reviewing as always quality over quantity. You might also want to read WP:WPAFC/HD so you may see the questions and answer of questionable drafts. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have reviewed some drafts. Can you check to see if I'm doing a good job reviewing them? Interstellarity (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity Pls provide links. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA You can find drafts I reviewed at Special:Contributions/Interstellarity. Interstellarity (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity Pls give me the links the one you want me to look at. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA See Draft:Grandbrothers, Liechtenstein at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics, Draft:Murda M4TT, Veselin Kesich, Draft:2020 J1 League, Draft:Gil Z. Hochberg, and Draft:Dino Mennillo. Interstellarity (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity I will look at your the drafts in next few days as I will be travelling tmr, a long fight. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I think you meant to say flight instead of fight. Interstellarity (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity Yes, I meant flight. Thank you for letting me know. For Draft:Grandbrothers - they article is written in slight promotional tone actually. For Liechtenstein at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics, the article has only 2 sources which does not pass WP:SIGCOV for we need min 3-5 sources, secondly, the sources are primary and not secondly thus they are not independent. It should not be accepted to be in the main space in Wikipedia. If such article is submitted in new page we will R2 it and yet you accepted it in draft, pls revert your review and inform the creator what is needed.04:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity see further comment made on Liechtenstein at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics above. Draft:Murda M4TT - You can actually nominated the draft for G11. Veselin Kesich, the first few sources are from books and it is just the book with no mentioned where the content could be found to verify the content in the article and the rest is the he has worked some book from google book sources. In there is no indicate that he is notable. i) he doesnt pass WP:NACADEMIC as he is just a professor and no sources to support that in the article, ii. no sources on reviewing his work (book) as an author, so not passing WP:NAUTHOR iii. no specific sources to verify the content claimed for passing [[WP:GNG]. You should not have accepted the draft. Draft:2020 J1 League - no sources, it is a good decline. Draft:Gil Z. Hochberg in what ground the draft is contrary to Wikipedia purpose (pls answer this question)? This is a wrong assessment, pls be very careful of "reject" a draft. Draft usually is a place for the editor to write and "learn" to write an article, we normally recline but not reject a draft so the creator would read the message/comment left by the reviewer and rework the draft. Draft:Dino Mennillo upon checking on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues he doesnt seem to pass WP:NFOOTBALL.

Interstellarity, We have gone through many round on notability, SSN, sources in details, however, you are still making fundamental miss unterpretation and have mistakes on you review. Here I go through again with you on on important things you need to check first (check each item when review an article)

A. First check CSD on

. Copyvio - if the content violate copyvio, then tag G12
. if it is a promotion, then tag G11

B. On notability/SSN

. For AFC, no source - decline (but pls check if the info/source would be found on External link/further reading section first, if nothing could be found then decline)
. with sources - are the sources independent? and are the sources reliable? if yes process to #5
. how many sources - Do we have at least 3-5 independent reliable sources? if yes process to #6
. Verify - could we verify the content claimed as per at least 3-5 independent, reliable source in the draft given by the creator? if yes process to #7
. SIGCOV / trivial mentioned ? If the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept then proceed to #8, if not ask for more independent, reliable sources where by the subject is mentioned in length and in dept. Or you can find the sources and help out the creator which i often do if the subject is notable.
.If the subject meet GNG and or SSN of then accept the draft, if not decline.
. When you re not sure/in doubt, do not review the article and leave it to other more experienced reviewer to do the work.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: When I reviewed the draft, Draft:Gil Z. Hochberg, it certainly wasn't ready to be accepted as a Wikipedia article yet. I thought when I rejected the submission, it wasn't possible yet for a Wikipedia article to exist. I will try to be very careful when reviewing articles. In the future, I will take a look at WP:AFCR that explains how to review articles. Interstellarity (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, This is your edit on rejecting the draft. You didnt answer my question - why do you think the draft was not ready to be accepted? and in what ground/basis the draft is "in what ground the draft is contrary to Wikipedia purpose"? This is important as I need to know what is your justification so we would discuss the issue and you would not make the same mistake again and learn from it instead of shying away from it. Pls reply. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA The draft is not ready to accepted yet because the submission is not referenced properly so that's why it is not ready to be a Wikipedia article yet. Interstellarity (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, We do only very few "reject" in AfC as it is a place for the editor to work on an article and learn how to write an article in Wikipedia. We often "decline" if they does not meed the notability guidlines. Which I have mentioned to you twice before to be very careful when you decide to "reject a draft" and when you are not sure, dont review the page/leave it to other more experience reviewer to do it. If you click on the "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." on this edit you made (rejection of the draft) here it lead you to Wikipedia:Five pillars. Secondly, where do you find the guidelines for either AfC or NPP stating if a article is poorly or uncensored it need to be removed from Wikipedia? (When you reject a draft page. It means either the article qualify A7/A9/ A11 or vandalism or after many attempts of different reviewers telling the author the subject is not notable irregardless how many times they edit it or adding sources (such as a singer who has only one song airs in Spotify) or the draft article falls under WP:What Wikipedia is not (just as a how to do xxx article)). Here we have just unsourced article about a university professor, how does it fit " "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" ?. Thee are 3 questions here, please answer them. Thank you.03:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I'm sorry if I didn't answer these questions earlier. I didn't receive the ping. I took a look at the draft further and I think I should have declined it. It is not contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The guidelines for reviewing new pages can be found at WP:NPP and the guidelines for reviewing AFC drafts can be found at WP:AFCR. I could not find any guidelines that state that. That probably means it doesn't. I should take me time reviewing drafts so that I'm less likely to make a mistake when reviewing them. I hope this answers your question. Interstellarity (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, Thank you for the respond and answer.Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)