User talk:Mabalu/Archives/2017/February

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Mabalu. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Mabalu/Archives/2017,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 826 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

pages for proposed deletion

Malibu, you sent me some messages via email saying my recent pages i created are proposed for deletion. This is due to the fact that i did not provide references of source for the information. On some other pages for eurovision in Israel, the names of singers were mentioned but there is no page available for the singer. By putting their names in Norton search, i found the information needed to create a page for the singer. I am not sure how i can therefore provide a reference of source for the information required to adhere to Wikipedia standards. Please advise.Seymourdix (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Seymourdix, I was very sorry to see that Almog Kapach got deleted. All you had to do was add the references you found as citations to the existing page, and then it would not have been deleted because it was no longer an unreferenced biography of a living person. If they are good references, then you can request that the page be undeleted, and then edit it to add in the references. Let me know if you need help. Mabalu (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

adding well-sourced material to a new page

Hi Mabalu, you left me a note regarding improving the page for Sarah Beth Durst, particularly in regard to adding more references as per the biographies of living people. I definitely intend to do this! But I expect it will happen in dribs and drabs given my schedule. Are there any time limits I should be aware of? Thanks. Shelfpea (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's more of advice than anything really - Sarah Beth Durst is basically the author's bibliography with barely any biography, and the one bit of straight biography, the detail about her graduation, is unsourced, and really should be - ANY biography content on a living person should be cited, preferably to WP:Reliable sources. The only sourcing is for the awards and award nominations. If you do add any more biographical content about her and her life, that should be sourced. Mabalu (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethel Moir

Thank you for reviewing Ethel Moir's new page and for your positive feedback! The page is unfinished there's a lot more info that I'm hoping to add to it sometime. LornaMCampbell (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Family Plastics

• Hi Mabalu....Yes, you are right. Point taken.Rajeshbieee (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Paston Treasure

amended and reduced article Norwikian (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)