User:Cassiopeia/NPPSchool/Zatsugaku

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

If both the instructor and student make completing the course curriculum a top priority, it will generally take around a month to go through the entirety of the curriculum. This pace is not required or necessarily expected, but rather is provided in order to give participants an idea of what to expect.

Notability[edit]

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.
Begun Zatsugaku (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

General notability guidelines[edit]

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

Answer: Wikipedia was conceived, built, and grown on the premise of honest individuals valuing the creation of a freely available knowledge resource and devoting sufficient time and energy to learning how to make useful contributions—both in new content and administrative functions. Individuals become new contributors for a wide variety of reasons, whether merely as part of a class assignment or on the mistaken assumption that they can promote their company. However, all those who take the first step have the potential to become a substantive contributor, even if their initial efforts are trivial or misguided, and even if they don’t come back to Wikipedia for several years. Having specific policies re AGF/BIT is essential because even simply non-communicative interactions can reasonably be interpreted as hostile and dismissive, and the threshold for deterring a newcomer's further contribution is not very high. More broadly, benevolence toward others is a matter of the proper application of the principle of justice.

checkY. New editors are unlikely to be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines. If one were to criticise them harshly ('bite'), which might be scared them away from Wikipedia. Instead, one should assume good faith, and approach new editors in a friendly and welcoming manner and help them correct their mistakes in a constructive and friendly manner so they may continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


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

Answer: Notability is a standard (genus) for the inclusion of a topic on Wikipedia as its own article or as an entry on a list (differentia); the standard is applied both through general guidelines and through contextual, domain-specific criteria. The primary guideline is founded on three tests: 1) significant coverage by 2) reliable, 3) independent sources (each of which embodies its own standards, i.e., verifiable, secondary sources). Domain-specific criteria (“Subject specific notability guidelines”) are developed and used when there are a large number of prospective entities or topics for inclusion whose details vary along a continuum of notability e.g., films, organizations, politicians, professors, geographical features. (Assessment of notability may thus require subject area expertise or further research if sources are not provided.) Wikipedia further defines notability by exclusion (by selectivity criteria or differentiation by Wikimedia projects), and by example (ostensive).

checkY. 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) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Pls see I have fix the link -from WP:Wikipedia is not policy to WP:Wikipedia is not policy. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


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

Answer: No. WP:NOT i.e., not an instruction manual. (However, it is plausible that such content might be subsumed as an exemplar on a page about instructional techniques.)

checkY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how to manual - see WP:NOTHOWTO. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (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: The GNG functions as a starting point for a potentially unlimited range of entities and concepts: from farm implements, to medical diagnosis, to mythical beings, to obscure physical phenomena. As per the definition, GNGs focus on the existence of significant reliable, verifiable, independent secondary sources, but also the appropriateness for the Wikipedia platform. On the other hand, SNGs address specific umbrella concepts, e.g., sports, through further subdivision into well-established fields, such as baseball, golf, sumo, etc., in which consensus is then used to develop a set of criteria or stipulations for notability. However, in some cases, criteria falls back on similar basic premises as in GNGs, e.g., that coverage of an athlete exceeds the routine, expected level for a typical participant. While domains covered by SNGs will almost certainly increase as Wikipedia is enhanced, currently there are only twelve and the number is likely to remain fairly limited. Thus, it is reasonable for a page reviewer to be aware of all the SNG domains and refer to them when encountering pages where there is any uncertainty as to their notability. (At some point, the page creation process could provide for guided or automated categorization and thus prompt editors/reviewers with the appropriate SNG.)

checkY Both can be used when patrolling but those subject falls under SNG/SSG (sport specific guidelines) but fails to meet the guidelines usually do not survive in article for deletion, unless passes a strong GNG guidelines. (We will discuss WP:AfD in later assignments). WP:NPOL, WP:NCORP and WP:NPROF do have very specific requirements for NPOL and NORG might have SIGCOV might be deleted in AfD due to the SGN criteria and NAADEMIC would survive AfD as scholar dont usually dont have many independent sources talk about them. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)



Specific notability guidelines[edit]

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: It is still notable. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." This example is both ostensibly notable (as a continuum of an established, notable series) and explicitly notable as part of the WP:NSPORT SNG. (Even Olympic sub-events are presumed notable.) This example also passes WP:N(E)#Future events.

checkY. However, if the event has no support of independent, reliable source (IRS), then it would consider not notable. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (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: The brief background of this question implies that there is no specific coverage or further criteria to establish notability, so no, based on "No inherent notability" / WP:ORGSIG.

checkY It also fails all the criteria of WP:NCORP. Specified sources is the very important requirement when reviewing a "company/organisation" article for many sources are either not independent (marketing/paid by the company itself) or not reliable (press releases) and etc. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


7. Nascimento Ferreira who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC) fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 8-1.

Answer: According to NMMA#1 he ("Ze Colmia") is deemed notable as he has fought at least three fights within the UFC. (Interestingly, he doesn’t seem to have a page.)

☒N. Ferreira has fought one time under UFC promotion - see here. (note Dana White Contender Series is not UFC event). WP:NMMA specifies a mixed martial arts fighter needs to have at least 3 fights under tier one promotion (see WP:MMATIER) to meet the NMMA requirements. Each SNG sportman/team specifies its requirements, some required a sport person has competed in certain event such as WP:NCYCLING or certain league such as WP:NBASKETBALL, other require a player played for a "high performance country" such as WP:NRU and etc. I would usually only review review sport person article / or any article of the specified sport/subject which I am familiar with. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Clearly I should have dug deeper into coverage to determine which events qualify. (This is not a field I have familiarity with so I will probably steer clear of reviewing most athlete pages.)
This is an exercise, for such I would provide some example of SNG/Sport Specific guidelines for participants so they may know there are a lot of such guidelines. I dont review any articles that with more than half the page full of equations/proofs/formulas for I have to go back to university to take some advance mathematics subject prior I would understand the content of the page. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:41, 17 April 2021 (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 2022 in the cinemas.

Answer: Generally not; according to WP:NFF Ph3, even though the film is presumably in production it "should generally not have [its] own article unless the production is notable…" (Incidentally, I think the guidance in WP:NFF is logically reversed. The 3rd Ph is the broader statement. The first paragraph, by negation, implies the opposite guidance.)

checkY, The subject is not notable under if the film is under production where IRS support such claim as WP:NFF states that films that are not confirmed to be in principal photography should not have their own articles. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
One reason I relied on the last criteria rather than the first was that while the question merely "reports…production in December" it is now after that date and filming could reasonably be anticipated to have begun (hmm…maybe not during a pandemic). My understanding is that notability exists outside of the issue of supplied IRS, so while not confirmed in the question, it might easily be confirmed by further research. Of course, I understand this is an exercise question, but that circumstance shifted my focus to the more clear-cut latter criteria, which supersedes the first criteria. (To clarify my earlier comment: The logical flow and wording in [[WP:NFF] is unnecessarily convoluted. The lead stipulation is essentially: not notable if not confirmed shooting; thus editors might assume it to imply notability if principal photography is confirmed. However, the last paragraph supersedes that implication by saying that even if shooting has begun, it is still not generally notable unless the production itself is notable. So, the latter criteria should come first and can be simplified into something like this: "Films that have not been publicly released should generally not have their own articles unless shooting has been confirmed to have started AND the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Of course, wordsmithing here is a digression from the exercise.)
Since this is an exercise, and at times, questions/info might not be current or specific enough, you could provide multiple answer in different scenarios if you wish. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:41, 17 April 2021 (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: Within WP:NPOL, the candidate would likely be notable based on GNG as directed by the SNG. (The prolog to the questions says not to consider the sources.)

☒N Generally some IRS could be found when a candidate is running for a political position. To pass WP:NPOL, once needs to be officially elected to state/national position. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I understand that the standard requirement is being elected. I am not very familiar yet with the coverage threshold for notability for a person under GNG, even though I understand the principle. The election campaign process creates a continuum of coverage, and I see that once senate candidates receive major party endorsement, they seem to become notable even if they had no previous notability criteria. (There are two such cases recently in Virginia.) But I realize that was not part of the question. My question is what is the best choice for a reviewer when it seems clear a candidate will likely become notable under GNG, for example, he or she is clearly going to win a party nomination and receive significant IRS coverage? From reading on this topic my impression is that it would be preferable to move the page to a draft space than to delete it.
If the subject "is running" for a political position and source could be found in local media, and with no previous positical held position, then the subject is considered fails the SNG notability guidelines. We would accept the article if the subject has "won" the election but yet to assume the office. However, if the subject is notable under other matter which passes the GNG guidelines, the the subject is warrant an article in Wikipedia. The key here is that, same as WP:NCORP, the SNG criteria is particular strict to previous advertising/campaigning/promotional subject to be included in Wikipedia. Do note SNG and SSN dont superseded GNG; however, when it comes to AfD, they hold considered amount of weight and almost always is the decision of the outcome of AfD. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


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

Answer: Within WP:ENT there is no basis for the singer in this example to be deemed notable.

checkY Fails all WP:ENT criteria. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (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: Alós-Ferrer is notable on WP:NPROF #5, His academic position as the NOMIS Professor for Decision and Neuroeconomics Theory is a named, endowed position and WP:NPROF #8, he is editor in chief of a journal in his field. If those criteria were not present, it might be worth assessing whether his work met #1 (Impact in Discipline) or #7 (Impact outside academics).

checkY Being a professor does not meet WP:NPROF criteria 5. However the subject meets WP:NPROF #1 - see [1] for being highly cited and #8 as the chief editor of Journal of Economic Psychology [2]. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I should have included #1; I wasn’t sure from the page the scope of his research’s influence but it is implicit in his other roles and position. I am still uncomfortable the discretionary judgement of what is significant if I’m not familiar with the research field, even though I do/review research (maybe because I do research). Re #5, The description on the page could be a little clearer, but he does hold a named chair appointment not just a regular professorship per reference 4.
Well-done on WP:NPROF #5. I have added the new source into the article. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


12. Alistair Overeem

Answer: He is notable under NKICK #1,. Fought for a world title of a major organization (in this case several). NKICK #1 at least three professional fights; #2, Fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization; Probably #3, Sherdog rating – but I would have to research what his ranking meant.

checkY. Well-done. Meets both WP:NMMA and WP:NKICK for criteria 1 & 2. He is also one of only two fighters to hold world titles in both MMA and K-1 kickboxing at the same time. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


13. Jennifer Lopez

Answer: She is notable under WP:SINGER #1, Multiple, non-trivial published works, etc.; #2, Singles or albums on national charts (Approx 25+); #3, Has a record certified gold; And all the subsequent categories, except for perhaps #6 which is ensemble membership. She is also notable under:

WP:COMPOSER #1, Credit for writing and #5, Listed as a major influence.
WP:ENT #1, #2, #3 (all)
WP:CREATIVE #3, Major role in …co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work (e.g., film).
checkY Good. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


14. Three Mile Island accident

Answer: The event is notable under WP:EVENTCRIT:

WP:LASTING, Enduring historical significance/lasting effect
WP:GEOSCOPE, Widespread impact
WP:COVERAGE: WP:DEPTH Analysis that puts event in context; WP:PERSISTENCE Coverage beyond news cycle; WP:DIVERSE Wide-ranging reporting
checkY. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


15. Persepolis

Answer: The location is notable under WP:GEOFEAT, Artificial feature officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage. It could also be notable under WP:GEOLAND, “Even abandon places can be notable because notability encompassed their entire history.” The city is legally recognized in the current context as historical/tourism cite but also previously as a capital of Achaemenid Empire. Thus, even if the ruin was no longer physically present, it might still be notable.

checkY. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


Zatsugaku Good day. See assignment 1 above. For all the assignments, pls provide hist diffs of the articles, reverts, edits, reports, results of the reports, guidelines, talk page messages, and any hist diff that is applicable. Pls provide guidelines where applicable and justify/explain in details of your application or analysis. Pls ping me if you need assistance (here in this program page at the communication section of every assignment). Please book mark this page and ping me when you have finished the assignment for me to review. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Let me know if I'm providing enough detail. Zatsugaku (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Zatsugaku See comments above. Pls house the "WP" page with double brackets before and after WP's page name. Example instead of WP:N, pls provide WP:N (see in source editing mode). Let me know if you have any questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cassiopeia: Thanks so much for all the feedback! I’ll await the next assignment. It is great to be digging into all of these areas in a systematic way. I’ll be sure to add the wikilinks in the future; I apologize for the inconvenience. (I saw later I should have put my reply below yours but I didn’t want it to ping you a second time by moving it.) I presume there will be times when I make an error and there will be some additional review.
Since I’m hoping at some point to be able to teach others this content, I hope it is okay if I spend some time reviewing my mistakes/oversights. Sometimes I overthink what should be straightforward questions and then I go back and contemplate how I came to the wrong conclusion. I see it as an "optimizing" process but I realize it can also be an impediment to just getting work done. So, my apologies in advance if I seem to belabor topics. I have put some additional thoughts and observations on the questions above. Let me know if I am doing too much. Zatsugaku (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Zatsugaku I have commented and corrected the link in Q2. This is a compressive program and you are doing well and heading to the right direction as you are being thorough. For most of the reviewers, they dont go through this program as we "expect" them to read the material and many do know only a small and specific info needed and for some they just want to have the reviewer right for hat collecting and commented they have read the necessary info when they apply the right. The way you to it is a very good start. Once you have gone through this program, you can apply for the reviewer right and you will gain more experience by just reviewing new articles. Also you can start joining the discussion at AfD once you have finish the assignments (assignment 4-5). I started as a trainer in WP:CVUA after I had completed the CUVA program and has more than 30K counter vandalism edits. I started set up this program after, after I have the approval from other admin, where I have more than 120K edits where I reviewed more than 1K new articles. I take my time to review an article for such I only would review about 5-10 per day when I was "really free" on that day. Some reviewers are "mass reviewers" they review hundred of articles per day just by scanning the info. There is no limit of how many articles a reviewer should review or not at all, each of use work on they own pace where time permit; however, a review right would be taken away, if the reviewer consistently review article wrongly and dont know the guidelines or how to apply the guidelines. We also in need to reviewers as we have new page backlog of at least over 2 months at any given time (Note: This is NPP and dont confuse with AfC (article for creation / draft), that is reviewing the draft page - another right for review the draft page and using same guidelines but not the same procedures - we can look into the differences if you want once you have finished this program). You dont need to have more than 100k total edits to become a trainer for I am just a little bit conservative to make sure make sure I have the knowledge and the practice to so so. If an editors is confident they have enough knowledge (know the the guidelines and have enough participation in AfD, CSD, PROP, reviewing new page and etc - we will cover all the above and more in later assignments), then they can be a trainer for some trainers only have about 30k total edits when they joined the team. I will explain more in later assignments for it would be too much info at one go for your first assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


Sources[edit]

Background for trainees[edit]

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.


Exercises[edit]

1.
Topic Explanation 5 Examples Comment by Cass
Reliable source Use of reliable sources is one of the pillars of Wikipedia’s credibility. The term source can mean the work, the creator, or the publisher and standards for reliability can apply to each of them. In practice, the content from a source is published information that also meets additional standards of verifiability and independence. In other words, it can be accessed by others and is created by authors who don’t have a conflict of interest. The standard for what constitutes “reliable” falls along a continuum of quality and the criteria varies both with the subject matter and with the type of source, and thus specific guidance is provided for categories such as academic works and news organizations. While the presentation of information on Wikipedia must be from a neutral point of view, the sources may, and often do, embody a bias
  1. (example)The Guardian newspaper
  2. The New York Times
  3. Encyclopædia Britannica
  4. MIT_Technology Review
  5. Congressional Quarterly
  6. Financial Times
User generated sources User generated sources are generally platforms that allow individuals to post content, thus they essentially are aggregations of unvetted/unreliable self-published content. This category includes social media sites, forums, wikis, or personal history sites. Self-published content on a specific subject by an established subject matter expert may be reliable. Autobiographical content should not be used for a a living person.
  1. Facebook
  2. Wikipedia
  3. Myspace
  4. TikTok
  5. YouTube
Non Independent source Non-independent sources are sources which have a stake or vested interest in the content and thus may inherently embody a biased viewpoint. It conceptually overlaps with some self-published sources. Such sources include press releases, special promotional sections in magazines, local newspapers dependent on ad revenue from their news subjects. Such sources can be used when attributing/quoting statements to authors, i.e., presented as an assertion rather than as a statement of fact. Syndicated stories can also represent a threat to independence as they are essentially the same story (same author) being offered by multiple outlets, and thus do not represent increased credibility as multiple sources. The non-independence of a source can be difficult to identify when a news source uses a press release as its own source.
  1. NewsUSA, paid syndicated messaging
  2. PR Newswire
  3. Gifts & Decorative Accessories trade magazine covering industry producers, new products, events, etc.
  4. |Palm Springs Life, contains a mix of feature articles and promotional stories for local businesses.
  5. TASS, Russian state press



2.
Type Explanation Sources (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary) Comment by Cass
Primary Primary sources generally represent first-hand accounts of events, ideas, opinions, etc., or research or analysis conducted by original researchers—and is thus less likely to be independent or neutral in point of view. Primary material may be acceptable in very delimited circumstances, including when the author’s work has been well-vetted, for verifiable descriptive statements of facts, or for direct quotes, such as a historic speech. Interpretations of such content should not be done by the editor (which would be original research) but rather should be drawn from further secondary sources
  1. (example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results
  2. Personal letters
  3. Autobiographies
  4. Diaries or travel logs
  5. Lab notebooks
  6. Interviews with subject matter experts
  7. Witness accounts
  8. Raw data produced by government and other organizations
  9. Proprietary data and research and technical field reports
  10. Op-Eds
  11. Patents
  12. Financial and business records
  13. Social media posts (mostly)
  14. An author’s assessment of his or her own work
  15. Medical records and clinical notes
  16. Creative works such as movies
Secondary A secondary source is an interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of a primary(s) source by author(s) other than the original author(s). A source (book, etc.) can embody a combination of secondary and primary content. For example, analysis of others’ work combined with ones’ own experiences. Conversely, inclusion of unevaluated primary content/data from other sources (merely reprinting) in an otherwise secondary source does not itself confer on the content secondary source status. The goal is to establish, to the extent possible, a content creation process that intermediates both the primary source and the editor/wikipedian by requiring that evaluative, analytic, synthetic, etc., claims in articles come from reliable secondary sources.
  1. (example) newspaper
  2. Biographies
  3. Articles in reliable periodicals discussing events (e.g., Newsweek, The Economist)
  4. Reviews of books
  5. Some systematic reviews of research (i.e., w/ analysis vs. merely a compendium)
  6. Radio and TV documentaries
Tertiary Tertiary sources aggregate secondary or primary sources or other data or facts and generally lack independent commentary or analysis. The aggregation can be a structured compendium of advanced concepts, as in a science textbook, a summarization of other multiple research results, or simple facts such as weather or sports records. In some areas of research, secondary and tertiary sources overlap. Additionally, work such as bibliography might be merely a compendium (tertiary), or if inclusion in the list itself was based on analytic criteria, it could be secondary.

The policy statement notes that tertiary sources serve a limited role on Wikipedia in helping summarize other sources, evaluating due weight, or to assist in putting diverse or conflicting sources in context. The policy also states that as Wikipedia articles are by definition generally tertiary so may not be used as sources in other Wikipedia articles. An exception are Category:Wikipedia pages which do use other pages as primary sources, and one example might be these WP policy pages.

(Thoughts/Sidenote: While each article’s content must be sourced on that page, the framework of topical subsections linking to main pages seems an example of the first state of Tertiary policy wherein content on a main page can serve to prioritize what is included in the other page's shorter topic-specific subsection. Also, if one were to consider the concept of “source” more broadly, the very nature of densely hyperlinked content creates implicit interdependencies, sometimes unrecognized. It’s certainly a matter of semantics and unnecessary to get into, but in an important sense, similar to object-oriented programming, a major design benefit of Wikipedia is the potential of leveraging other pages in ways that implicitly create a source/knowledge “reuse” and a provenance relationship.)

  1. (example) encyclopedias
  2. Textbooks (in many cases)
  3. Digests and abstracts
  4. Literature reviews
  5. Fact and record books, almanacs
  6. Databases



3.


Subject Primary Secondary Tertiary Comment by Cass
Example: Art Example:Sculpture Example:Article critiquing the sculpture Example:Encyclopedic article on the sculptor
History Diary of an explorer Biography written about the explorer Database of locations the explore visited
Science University Lab experiment Newspaper reports on the experiment’s discoveries Wikipedia article describing the phenomena in the discovery, citing multiple secondary sources
Athletes Video of an athletic event Commentator analyzes the athletes’ performance A table of athletic performance during the event



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

Answer: The nature of Wikipedia as a platform with content created by volunteers who are not required or vetted to possess any specialized skills, requires that in most cases the content needs to be verifiable. Additionally, information in Wikipedia can be utilized in more diverse ways if the content comes from reliable, independent, and accessible sources as readers can not only check the accuracy but can pursue further information. In some cases (perhaps frequently), content can be verified but there are reasons to dispute other facets of the source (reliability, independence, or whether it is secondary or primary, etc.) and thus might be contested/rejected by other editors. Of course, verifiability principally applies to being able to assess if the content accurately represents a secondary source, not necessarily confirming that that source was accurate.

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

Answer: Wikipedia is generally a tertiary source and thus in most cases it is against policy to be used as a source. Content on pages needs to be properly backed by citations on that page. However, other Wikipedia pages can provide guidance to an editor as to what aspects of a topic are important to include and hyperlinking provides a means to offer further content while keeping the current topic/page concise.

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

Answer: A source (an individual) might have first-hand access to information but also might be a participant in an event or have a personal or financial stake in an event. For example, a doctor describes the experience of treating patients during a pandemic. A secondary source (reporter) would serve to confirm that the source was in fact a doctor who was in that circumstance and have notes or recordings from that the individual describing such events.

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

Answer: From a policy standpoint, a source can be independent merely by not having any conflict of interest, personal connection, motivation toward a bias, etc; independence primarily relates to the nature of relationship between the source and content. Reliability relates to individual or institutional reputation, professional skills, and/or processes to ensure accuracy. For example, a volunteer high school reporter with no experience might attend a speech given by a famous alumnus economist, yet egregiously misconstrue or misquote the speaker in an article in the school newspaper.

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,[1] until his resignation on November 9, 2012[2] after his affair with Paula Broadwell was reported.[3]

Petraeus was born in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, the son of Sixtus Petraeus (1915–2008),[4] a sea captain from Franeker, Netherlands.[5]


In 2003, Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the fall of Baghdad[6][7]


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/ Yes The source is major newspaper Yes The source is reputable published source Yes 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 Yes The source is a major news outlet Yes The source is reputable (usually) online and video publisher Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. (Note link is dead.) ✔ Yes
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893 Yes The source is a major news outlet Yes The source is reputable (most of the time) Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012 No There is no inherent source subject-independence in user-added geneology records, even if the record is claimed to be added by someone else No Anyone can add such records No In the context of judging significant coverage toward CNG, parentage records would seem generally irrelevant, just an added fact ✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005 Yes The source is a major feature story and news outlet Yes The source is reputable Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. However, the Vanity source doesn’t seem to describe where his father is from. It does say his father was a captain, thus, ideally the citation should be after the word “captain”. (A later source does say the Netherlands.) Neither the Geni site nor the Vanity Fair article mention where David Patraeus was born although the Vanity Fair story says where he grew up. ✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html Yes The source is a major news institution Yes The source is reputable Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. Note this source mentions Commanding the 101st but does not reference the fall of Baghdad; instead it focuses on his work in Mosul after the invasion. ✔ Yes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html Yes The source is a major online newspaper publisher (formerly in print); Side note: since the article was published in 2011, the more recent purchase by a Russian Oligarch does not come into play. Yes The source is reputable Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. Side note: While the content is true, the 101st saw almost no combat in the fall of Baghdad; Pataerus is noted for what he did later in Mosul. [3] ✔ 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

  1. ^ "Petraeus sworn in as CIA director". CNN. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  2. ^ Johnson, Kevin (November 9, 2012). "David Petraeus resigns from CIA". USA Today. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
  3. ^ "Petraeus Shocked By Girlfriend's Emails". HuffPost. 2012-11-12. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  4. ^ "Sixtus Petraeus". geni.com.
  5. ^ "David Petraeus' Winning Streak". Vanity Fair. March 30, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  6. ^ "beyond baghdad". www.pbs.org. 2004-02-12. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  7. ^ "David Petraeus: General Surge". The Independent. 2007-09-08. Retrieved 2019-10-11.



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: By Subject Specific Guidelines (people), David Petraeus became notable under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria “Any Biography” standard #2, within the historical record of his field (US military) after his role in Iraq and notably skilled leadership in Mosul 2003-2004. He would subsequently be notable, also in the military history context, for leading the United States Central Command (all leaders of Central Command have pages). Petraeus also became notable under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria for significant coverage in multiple secondary sources in articles about his life and military career (per citations in this exercise and others). Finally, he would be notable under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges after appointment as Director of the CIA, which amounts to a "national…office."



10.

Martina Hingis is a Swiss former professional tennis player.[1] She won five Grand Slam singles titles.[2] Hingis was one of the highest-paid female athletes in 2000.[3] 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,[4] which led to a two-year suspension from the sport.[5]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.instagram.com/martinahingis80/ No Instagram pages are personal, primary sources. No There is no basis to presume self-reported information is reliable. No The scope of primary, self-reported information is not relevant to notability. ✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-us-open-hingis-20170910-story.html Yes The source is a major news outlet. Yes The source is reputable. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes
[3] Yes The source is an established, professional player, tournament director, and tennis journalist. Yes The source is reputable. He has 35+ years of experience, has been published globally in sports magazines, earned 25 writing awards, and has several books from established publishers. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail, for this point. (Overall, it looks like the book only mentions Hingis briefly a handful of times.) (note the comment on 2000 earnings is nearly tertiary – from a list of “fun facts.”) ✔ Yes
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/21171438/tennis-another-twist-bizarre-career-martina-hingis Yes The source is a major sports news outlet. Yes The source is reputable. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. (Note that the ESPN article mentions an injury but not the hip. It also mentions the suspension for two years so maybe move cite 4 to the end of line after that fact.) ✔ Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/nov/01/tennis Yes The source is a major news outlet. Yes The source is reputable. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. (Note the article covers the drug test and retirement but not the two year suspension, so ideally the positions of cite 4 and 5 might be reversed.) ✔ 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

  1. ^ "Martina Hingis (@martinahingis80) • Instagram photos and videos". www.instagram.com. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  2. ^ "Martina Hingis wins her 25th Grand Slam championship, the women's doubles crown at the U.S. Open". Los Angeles Times. 2017-09-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  3. ^ a b Paul Fein (30 January 2003). Tennis Confidential: Today's Greatest Players, Matches, and Controversies. Potomac Books, Inc. pp. 197–. ISBN 978-1-57488-526-2.
  4. ^ "Done again? Why Martina Hingis decided to retire for a third time". ESPN.com. 2017-10-26. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  5. ^ Staff; agencies (2007-11-01). "Tennis: Martina Hingis retires amid cocaine controversy". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
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: Under subject specific guidelines for tennis players Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Tennis, Hingis seems to qualify in all the categories (even ATP in a mixed doubles). For example, in WTA Tour records she holds numerous rankings. Based on the above content—the exercise text, (five Grand Slam titles)—that would be criteria 3. She would also qualify under GNG for coverage per the above citations.


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.[1][2] Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture."[3] 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.[4]


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/ Yes The source is a major news outlet. Yes The source is reputable. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes
https://franklloydwright.org/work/ No The source promotes the legacy of FLW. (However, the existence of a major endowed foundation for such promotion could be seen as supporting GNG.) Yes The source is reputable. The foundation is managed by professionals in their respective fields and the website content is mostly drawn from other sources. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302053743/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm Yes The source is a major news outlet. Yes The source is reputable. (Note: The quote/award is not readily verifiable on the AIA website.) Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC Yes The source is a biography written long after his death. Yes The author is respected with several books and strong credentials; the publisher is top-tier. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and 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}}.

References

  1. ^ Hoffman, Barbara (2017-06-07). "Famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright had a dark side". New York Post. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  2. ^ "Frank Lloyd Wright's Work". Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  3. ^ "BW Online | July 28, 2004 | Frank Lloyd Wright: America's Architect". 2008-03-02. Archived from the original on 2008-03-02. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  4. ^ Robert C. Twombly (24 April 1987). Frank Lloyd Wright: His Life and His Architecture. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-85797-6.


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: Under Subject Specific Guidelines, Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, Frank Lloyd Wright is notable under all four criteria. He is widely cited by his peers (The AIA award was a survey), he originated the Prairie style, which was called "the first uniquely American architectural style…" He created a significant body of work (more than 425 buildings) and numerous books and documentaries have been published. His works have become monuments (Guggenheim, Fallingwater, Taliesin, etc.) and won wide critical acclaim.



14.

Jordan Lennon (born February 22, 2000), is a British film producer and actor. [1] Lennon is currently a member of BAFTA.[2] He continues to work aside 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros, Wicked Wales, Capture Studios, Cineworld, Paramount Pictures, and Rockefeller Foundation.[3]

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.[4] In December 2018, Jordan and Rowan finished British Film Academy.[5] 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/ No While the source is a major film/TV industry-specific repository of data, it allows for self-written bios (and Jordan Lennon’s bio is attributed to him). In addition, like Wikipedia, much of IMDB is contributed by volunteers. (So on some content it could be considered primary, other tertiary.) No While most of the content on IMDB is added by industry insiders and might be thought of as generally reliable, the WP non-policy essay Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb provides guidance. For this IMDB page, it seems likely that all the content is self-reported and doesn’t meet any of the criteria in the essay. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail.

Updated link: [4]

✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales Yes The source is an industry association – British Academy of Film and Theater Arts. Yes The source is reputable, and one can access the list of members. No The source does not seem to discuss the subject in any way. The link is to sub-site BAFTA CYMRU (Wales) rather than to the main BAFTA page. Cymru offers membership types (associate and student) that don’t reflect the same notability or professional standing that a BAFTA membership conveys. (Jordan Lennon is not listed among the regular BAFTA members. [5]; and would not appear to meet regular BAFTA criteria for membership.) ✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125 No The source, LinkedIn is a primarily a social networking and social media platform where content is generally self-curated (except recommendations). No There is no reliability associated with a biographical content. However, in another context, transactional content (metadata) could be seen as reliable as it is a professional platform. No Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a current LinkedIn page for this particular Jordan Lennon. ✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/ Yes The source is an industry voice talent/job search platform. From the About, the actor information sounds curated, not self-reported. The bio information seems limited to a statement of "This actor is known for X roles". For other information, there are survey/trending results, all of which is either primary, or data aggregation so tertiary. There is misc news content. Yes The source appears to be a reputable and longstanding professional website. No The source seems like it has no information on the subject. The link goes to someone else’s (David Lennon’s) page. ✘ 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

  1. ^ "Jordan D. Lennon". IMDb. Retrieved 2019-01-21.
  2. ^ "BAFTA Cymru". www.bafta.org. 2014-06-16. Retrieved 2019-01-21.
  3. ^ Lennon, Jordan. "LinkedIn Account". LinkedIn. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
  4. ^ "Jordan David - 2 Character Images". Behind The Voice Actors. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  5. ^ "BFI Film Academy". Tape Community Music & Film. 2016-08-24. Retrieved 2019-01-21.

Re the fifth source (Tape Community Music and Film):

y The source is a non-profit/charity that seems to have no link to particular actors/individuals.
y The source is reputable within the limited range of information they offer.
n The source doesn’t discusses the subject. The Tape Community organization does offer a training course of that name but the WP content (a claim he completed the course) can’t be verified directly on the site but could perhaps be done through a direct contact with the organization. The WP link in the exercise for the course doesn’t got to the Tape Community website which arranges the courses but rather to a BFI London film festival page.


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: The actor has had one significant role in six episodes of a TV drama based in Ireland. By the subject specific guidelines #1 for entertainers Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, he does not have sufficient work to be notable. His self-list other productions don’t appear to be themselves notable. Re guideline #2, there is no readily apparent fan base. Re Guideline #3, there is no indication or claim of contribution to field. The subject fails every criterion.


16.
Sonny Bill Williams 2010

Sonny William Williams (born 3 August 1985), who is a Muslim[1], is a New Zealand All blacks rugby union footballer,[2] Williams was a Marist Saints junior when he was spotted playing in Auckland by Bulldogs talent scout John Ackland.[3] 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.[4]

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 Yes The source is a news outlet whose content is written by reporters. No The source was banned by Wikipedia as unreliable. wiki/Daily_Mail#Reliability [[6]] although in 2019 the MailOnline’s status was upgraded by Newsguard. Aside from the policy, in this case the cite only claims that the athlete is Muslim which seems given the photo, etc., to be ostensibly credible content. Also, per WP:BIO lede, notability builds on fame/celebrity, so to some degree notability is enhanced even by tabloid articles. However, per the policy, other credible sources should be readily available so it is unnecessary to use. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✘ No
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108 Yes While the website is the Allblack official team website, it is independent of the athlete regarding his membership on the team, his position, statistics, etc. Yes The official team website is the source of record for who its team members are. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308 Yes The source is a major news outlet. Yes The source is reputable. The media bias rating company rates it as unbiased and "high" re being factual. [7] Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. However, the citation seems flawed as it is positioned to support far more than the news article says. It supports that he was a Marist, but not when vis a vis the any connection to discovery by the talent scout. ✔ Yes
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html Yes The source is a major news outlet. Yes The source is reputable. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. However, the news article supports him being the youngest but doesn’t directly say he signed in 2002; but that claim could be inferred from the discussion. ✔ 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

  1. ^ "2019 Rugby World Cup: Sonny Bill Williams is expecting a fourth child". Mail Online. 2019-09-25. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  2. ^ "Stats | allblacks.com". stats.allblacks.com. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  3. ^ Rattue, Chris (2 September 2006). "Jerome Ropati – Miracle in the making". New Zealand Herald. APN Holdings. Retrieved 10 October 2010.
  4. ^ "The King, Sonny and heir". Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax. 2 October 2004. Retrieved 12 November 2011.


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: Williams meets the notability requirements for both Rugby League and Rugby Union. Under Rugby League he meets criteria 1 and 3. For Rugby Union, he meets criteria 1, 2, and 3. For example, NRL 2004 premierships, the Rugby World Cup in 2011 and 2015 and other Rugby Union European teams, and the 2016 Olympics. He looks like he would also be notable as a boxer under criteria 1 as a WBA International Champion, which would also imply he meets criteria #3 which is broader.


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"[1]


Weekly charts

Chart (1991-1992) Peak
position
US Mainstream Rock (Billboard)[2] 2
Denmark (IFPI)[3] 2
US Billboard Hot 100[4] 2

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

End-of-year charts

End-of-year chart (1991) Position
Canada Top Singles (RPM)[5] 3
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/09/arts/grammy-short-list-many-for-a-few.html Yes The source is a newspaper of record. Yes The source is clearly reputable. Yes The source covers most of the information in the citation (except the co-authorship by Lange). ✔ Yes
https://www.billboard.com/music/Bryan-Adams/chart-history/RTT Yes The source is a music industry website of record for billboard ranking, the online presence of Billboard magazine. Yes The source is reputable. For example, it has been published regularly for over a hundred years. Yes The claimed/cited ranking is present. The source principally provides data, so it can be interpreted as tertiary. However the extensive quantity and level of rankings also contributes to general notability (beyond subject specific). ✔ Yes
https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-UK/Music/Archive-Music-Media-IDX/IDX/90s/91/MM-1991-11-16-OCR-Page-0029.pdf#search=%22can't%20stop%20this%20thing%20denmark%22 Yes The source is was a music play data report of record (OCR archive). Yes The source was reputable. No The source covers information about the performer’s songs and albums but the specific link is dead and direct retrieval from the link information (embodying the same date: 10-16-91) does not list that song at #2 in Denmark. It does list the album as #1 and another song from that album, “I do it for you” as #1. [8] Also, the Wikilink to IFPI also doesn’t seem to comport with the reference link to Music and Medial. The M&M archives do show the song with high rankings at other times and places. ✘ No
https://www.billboard.com/music/Bryan-Adams/chart-history/HSI Yes As above, the website is the online presence for Billboard magazine which provides play data. Yes As above, the source was reputable. Yes The source does show the rank of the song as #3 in Hot100 for that date. Again this is tertiary data but its presence and level contribute GN. ✔ Yes
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2024&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2024.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2024 Yes The source was a trade magazine which generally aggregated play data without regard for the performer. Yes The source was one of the sources of record for the music industry from 1964 to 2000. Yes The source does show the claimed ranking of #3 in Canada. Similar to Billboard, the source is primarily aggregated data but does contribute to general notability. ✔ 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

  1. ^ Pareles, Jon (1992-01-09). "Grammy Short List: Many For a Few". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-12-28.
  2. ^ "Bryan Adams Chart History (Mainstream Rock)". Billboard.
  3. ^ "Top 10 Denmark" (PDF). Music & Media. Retrieved March 21, 2018.[permanent dead link]
  4. ^ "Bryan Adams Chart History (Hot 100)". Billboard.
  5. ^ "RPM 100 Hit Tracks of 1991". RPM. Retrieved November 23, 2017.
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:

The performer meets most of the subject specific guidelines for musicians, including #1, 2,3, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 (i.e., theme song for Robinhood ).



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.[1][2]


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://medium.com/@kamleshbhatt_ No Medium is a user-created content platform. No There is no editorial review, etc. No The above link appears to be out of date, so no content/stories there but this updated link has some content [9]. However, while it has some technical discussion by him, it doesn't convey any significant activities or notability. ✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kamlesh-bhatt-45392961/ No LinkedIn is a user-created content platform. No There is not editorial review, etc. Yes There is extensive background on his SW development credentials and career. ✘ 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

  1. ^ "Kamlesh Bhatt". Medium. Retrieved 2019-12-28.
  2. ^ Bhatt, Kamlesh (December 27, 2019). "Kamlesh Bhatt". Linkedin. Retrieved December 27, 2019.
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: Kamlesh Bhatt does not appear to meet any Subject Specific Guidelines for people. It is interesting to note that there are no SSNG for many professions including people in the software development world, although he would still be unlikely to meet such criteria.


Zatsugaku Hi, see Assignment 2 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Zatsugaku Hi, pls note that I have change the page name to User:Cassiopeia/NPPSchool/Zatsugaku. Pls book mark this page in your computer so you may find it. Thank you.02:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Zatsugaku For question 8 onward, pls open (click the show icon) to see the table. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: Sorry if I was suppose to notify you on completion. Zatsugaku (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: I'll be back in my regular time zone in a little less than a week. That would be a good point to get started on next assignment. If you are too busy to review/comment, perhaps I can still get started then on 3. Zatsugaku (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Zatsugaku Are you still interested in continuing the program? Pls let me know.00:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cassiopeia/NPPSchool/Zatsugaku&oldid=1091617143"