User talk:ONUnicorn/NPP Quiz

"Answers" and reasoning for including each example

1. This is an example of an unsourced stub for a notable place with the possibility of expansion. It is also an example of an article written by a non-native speaker in need of copyediting. There are a couple legitimate actions that can be taken here. It can be tagged as a stub, tagged as not citing any sources, potentially tagged as lacking notability, tagged as needing copyediting. On the other hand, the patroller can search for sources, determine that it is notable but that most of the sources are in Arabic, leave sources on the talk page, and tag as a stub. Or the patroller can find sources and rewrite the article him/herself. It can be tagged as needing attention from an Arabic speaker. It would not be appropriate to simply mark it as patrolled and move on taking no additional action. Neither would it be appropriate to nominate it for deletion.

2. This is an example of a hoax article. The patroller should search to determine if Melon Man is a thing, and upon determining that it is not, it should be marked for speedy deletion as a hoax.

3. This is a great example of A7. The patroller should search to try to determine if this person is notable, but even if they are, the article as written is pretty unsalvageable. If the patroller determines this person is notable, this may be a good candidate for draftification, or it may be better to blow it up and start over. That is at the patroller's discretion.

4. In some ways this is similar to 1, although it's in worse shape, with false statements and that funny little "note to editor" part at the end. This is this editors first contribution to Wikipedia and it's clear they don't know how Wikipedia works. However, the topic of the article is notable, and they did attempt to assert they got the information from a book. Ideally, the patroller should approach the editor who contributed the article, welcome them, and inquire as to what book they found the information in. They should delete the note, tag the article as lacking sources, being a stub, etc. They can search for sources themselves to verify the information, and using a combination of the Children's Village Name and Isaac Hopper should lead them to the correct Children's Village. This is an example of a new editor badly in need of mentoring. Unfortunately in this case it didn't happen that way. It was incorrectly nominated for speedy under A7, the speedy was declined and it was sent to AFD. Meanwhile the contributor became angry, didn't know how to use talk pages, attempted to communicate with other editors in the body of articles, decided Wikipedia is stupid, turned to vandalism, and was indeffed a short time later. This is an example of how improper patrolling can be Bitey.

5. This is an example of a perfectly acceptable article by an established contributor. The patroller should read the article, fix the typo, maybe verify the sources say what they're supposed to say, mark it patrolled, and move on.

6. This is an example of a redirect which was turned into an article that would qualify as A7. It should not, however, be A7 deleted, rather it should simply be reverted back to a redirect, perhaps with a warning to the creator.

7. This is an example of an article that's probably ok to just mark patrolled and move on, but really needs some better sources. The patroller could tag it with ref improve, look for sources themselves, mark it as patrolled, possibly even AFD it if they looked for sources and couldn't find anything better than what's given, but it likely would survive AFD.

8. This is an example of a cut-and-paste move. The page that came up on new pages had previously been a redirect, and someone thought the content belonged at that name instead of the other one. There are two options here; revert back to a redirect, or tag the page for history merge. One reason I'm including this is I want to make sure patrollers think to check the page history and the content of the redirect destination in the case of redirects that are now articles. Also, tagging for hist merge isn't currently included in the page curation toolbar, so they'll need to think to do it manually. They need to recognize there is a problem here and what to do about it.

9. This is an example of an article that was accepted at AFC and moved into mainspace that still has problems, although they aren't obvious at first glance. It's also an example of an article by an editor who likely has a COI. They could focus unduely on the COI and bite the contributor, or they could figure if AFC accepted it it's all good and mark the page as patrolled and move on without recognizing the problems remaining in the article. However, if they take a good look at the article and the sources, they will see that, while notability is established and all the information in the article is likely correct, the sources don't really support the material they are being cited as supporting, and there is some improper synthesis.

10? I'd like to include a copyvio in this test, something like some of the deleted versions of Sita Devi (Artist), but the problem is that would itself be a copyvio - and it's hard to test someone on their ability to spot a copyvio without creating a copyvio in the process. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• @ONUnicorn: Apologies if I am posting this message in the wrong location (if so, feel free to move this someplace else), but it might be possible to make a copyvio test using text that has been suitably licensed via OTRS (articles appearing in Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed). A particularly tricky example would be this revision of All-commodity volume, where the copied text is from a book and might not be found by web searched. (I chose that revision as the text of the article when Moonriddengirl added the OTRS permission tag to the talk page) Pppery 02:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)