Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

Active discussions
Caution Tip: When you see a page that appears to be obviously a commissioned work, take a moment to check the history. If it's a recreation of a page that has previously been deleted three or more times, please add the {{salt}} tag below the CSD tag to request that the responding administrator SALT the article. In addition, consider adding a note to the talk page requesting a block of the account per WP:SPAM. For more information please see this section and if you are still in doubt, don't hesitate to post a question here.

NPP Backlog (how to use this chart)

Advice pleaseEdit

On List of Interior Ministers of Lebanon. Someone had the idea of copying a page from the Lebanese government website into wikitables, but then gave up, leaving the article mostly empty. Although there’s only one source, it’s authoritative, and a list of ministers is a good thing to have. Interestingly the article creator added a bunch of ministers from before 1943 (Lebanese independence) who don’t appear on the government website, without any source. I think the options are patrol and pass because the topic is clearly notable, tagging for more sources, or draftify because the sourcing isn’t sufficient, but I’m not sure which is best. Any views? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you should start by draftifying because of the major gaps (it wouldn't pass AfC). If you know the sources, then you can take time to fill it in. Kingsif (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with draftifying. Other than one slight tweak on 12/11, it has seen any significant improvement in almost a month. I might also suggest to the editor that they merge this onto Ministry of Interior and Municipalities (Lebanon), which is currently a stub, and the list would do nicely there. Onel5969 TT me 14:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Cyrillic homographsEdit

For others who have been tricked into researching a topic before noticing that the title used homographs to bypass watchlists and deletion logs, here's a script which higlights Cyrillic letters in titles: Highlight homographs in title.js.

Just this morning I came across two articles that used this trick (switching "a"s out with the Cyrillic letter а).

Thjarkur (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Þjarkur, wow. Thank you. Onel5969 TT me 14:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Þjarkur, brilliant. --John B123 (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I had a look through the entire list of new pages and did not find any more. Please report these editors, they should be blocked on sight. MER-C 11:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Radiofrequency Echographic Multi SpectrometryEdit

I’d appreciate other eyes on this. To me it reeks of promotion of a novel therapy. Created by new account Saluteossea (“bone health”). The technique clearly has been discussed in published papers but the exhaustive detail of the article looks like a veneer of scientific truthiness. Am I being paranoid? Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It's been translated from the Italian article it:Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry which was created on 27 November. Both versions were created by new user Saluteossea. It strikes me as promotional too, but maybe not enough for a WP:G11 given the number of medical sources? --John B123 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I know it has a lot of refs, but swaths of it are still unreferenced. For example the first section has zero sources, and most of the 3rd, 6th and 8th sections are unsourced. Add to that phrases like, "an innovative, non-ionizing technology" and "As widely reported in the scientific literature" (which is not supported by the single citation), indicate a promotional aspect. To me, the whole thing reeks of a promotional brochure. Onel5969 TT me 23:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Coming at this from a medical editor's perspective. Most of the refs a) fail WP:MEDRS - they are primary source studies, not review papers, textbooks or clinical guidelines and b) are published by the same group of researchers, so are not really independent. [17] is actually a review paper and may be usable but the vast majority of the article content does not satisfy MEDRS and I am not sure there would be much left if it were to be trimmed. Basically, it strikes me as WP:TOOSOON. This isn't my field though and I haven't done a WP:BEFORE search, so I've posted on WikiProject Medicine to get some other editors' perspectives. Spicy (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
John B123, if you aren't sure whether it's enough for G11, then it's not. That's what "unambiguous" means: nobody would question it. "Buy this on my website now!" is unambiguous. If you think there's any possibility of a good-faith editor even wondering, then it's ambiguous, and therefore AFD material, not CSD material.
Having looked briefly at it, it doesn't qualify for CSD, and I think that it would survive AFD. I'd recommend shortening it and maybe looking for a potential merge target. A List of medical imaging techniques would be handy, if it existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it provides too much detail, but a short stub is warranted. Ruslik_Zero 08:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. Mccapra (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I came across this article in the queue today. Given the discussion here, as well as the fact that Saluteossea has provided all of the images for the article as (apparently legitimate) "own work", I've marked it as reviewed, tagged it with {{COI}}, and sent Saluteossea a note about COI editing. If people find a suitable merge target I have no issue with that, but it doesn't seem like we were about to do so and it otherwise seems to pass muster for staying in mainspace. signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

My expertise is not in medical but in the engineering/ physics areas involved including 3D imaging/ image processing (including acoustic imaging) The article content has two main groups. Claims of good test results (which I did not evaluate) plus what appears to be a technical explanation on how it works. On the latter, despite appearances, there really is no technical explanation of how it works. Any real explanation has been left out. It probably should be an article, but needs to be whacked down to what independent sources have said. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability filmsEdit

I just came across to these two articles: Dial 100 (2021 film) and Draft:Phone Bhoot created by the same user. Dial 100 has been reviewed recently, and it seems OK to me. However the Draft:Phone Bhoot was declined. Both articles are written in the same pattern. Both articles have enough sources. Films which have commenced principal photography deserve their own article. Right? In this case what should be done? Phone Bhoot Deserves its own article? or Dial 100 should be nominated for deletion? --Gazal world (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that Phone Boot was already deleted at AfD as well. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
From WP:NFF: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". That suggests to me neither meet WP:NFILM. --John B123 (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok. So in this case, If the trailer of the film has been released on the official YouTube channel, we should keep the article. Right? --Gazal world (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I think "video" in publicly released (theatres or video) refers to films that are released straight to video/dvd/digital rather than shown in cinemas first, not trailers on youtube. Some films are subsequently cancelled even though a trailer has been released. --John B123 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Gazal world: It depends on the sources. There's been recent discussion at the film project about this. If the trailer is all that is known about the film, then it's a strong no. Some users advocate for only having articles after a film is released, but sometimes there are notable productions that are cancelled or not released after a lot is known about them, and sometimes there are released films of which nothing is known besides it existing. There's also the in-between of films that are completed, distributed in festivals for years, but struggle to find a VOD or theatrical release - despite the festivals, a public release is what's counted - like Being Impossible, which obviously has a lot of production detail and reviews, and in this case analysis and a submission to the Oscars. A film and a film's production can both be notable; in fact, a film article without any production information is liable to be deemed non-notable. The gray lines of release mean it comes down to if you can argue it is notable, for which you need sources and examples, so there's no hard line rule on having X or Y (e.g. a wide release, a trailer, etc.) as a notability cut-off. If all you have is a trailer, all you can say is "it should exist soon", which isn't notable. If you have a film that is released but never reviewed and no RS cares enough to talk about its production, all you can say is "it has existed since X date", which isn't really notable, either, though there's a lower bar for film notability overall, I've noticed. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I think this explanation matches my understanding and experience well. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

plant/animal stubsEdit

Hi. Recently there have been a spate of plant/animal stubs coming through NPP. Most are simple approvals, but recently there have been a bunch which the sole source was International Plant Names Index, which I took as a reliable source, however, while reliable, there is an issue with it I didn't know about, see the end of this discussion. Onel5969 TT me 14:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the article that sparked all of this off, Pleurothallis cactantha/Specklinia cactantha, there seems to be some disagreement amongst experts as to the "correct" naming system identification judging by the identifiers on the dual Taxon bar. Looking at this version [1] of Pleurothallis cactantha before it was redirected, with 7 identifiers listed I wouldn't have questioned the naming.
On a different subject, there have been a large number of unreferenced beetle stubs created overnight (such as Carabus biroi) --John B123 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
John B123, I just moved them all to draft and left a message on their talk page. I would have left them alone, to see if they got improved, but they went on to create more articles and templates, after getting warned on their talkpage, rather than going back and fixing those stubs. Onel5969 TT me 16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Onel5969 Well done, I was considering doing that myself. --John B123 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
John B123, It was a choice of that, or redirecting them to the closest classification. 6 of one, you know? Onel5969 TT me 16:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes, Starzoner stubs. It seems to be one step forward, 3/4 step backwards with this editor over the last half year or so :/ The IPNI synonyms issue is real, and the resultant articles will all have to be fixed, by moving and rewording. What they should be (and previously have been) using as a source is WCSP or POWO/Kew [2] which is very clear about synonymy. Wikiprojects:Plants has guidelines on that - while it is true that the synonymy is not always entirely fixed, there IS consensus on what sources we should be treating as authoritative, and IPNI ain't it. Hopefully they've gotten the message now; it's a bit much to ask of reviewers to check every one of hundreds of stubs for synonymy... the editor has now stated that they "will manually fix them all", which historically has not been a guarantee that anything will happen. Let's please keep an eye out for this particular issue, because if there's no change then someone will have to apply the brakes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Elmidae, now warned, will be on the lookout. It's more time-consuming, but after all, that's what we do here. Onel5969 TT me 16:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Erk! Mccapra (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thomas George RutherfordEdit

Sorry for asking this here. I Don't know which is the right place for asking. Do we really need such one-line article? --Gazal world (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Was wondering the same: should we just wave through hopeless stubs as long as they meet an SNG? Modussiccandi (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we should keep it. He was governor for two years so there is a good chance that that article can be built out. We gain nothing by zapping it now. Mccapra (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. I have seen many draftifications of many notable articles. So I asked. --Gazal world (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Well the sources look satisfactory to me so I don’t think notability is in doubt. An article shouldn’t be draftified just because it’s a stub. Mccapra (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it should be kept. As governor, if someone takes the time to go through historical newspapers and books about the state, there is sure to be coverage, but it will take a lot of work. Onel5969 TT me 22:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
A Governor of an Indian state passes WP:POLITICIAN and the article is referenced. Annoying as it is to have one-liners, I don't think there is anything that can be done about it. This user has created around 900 minimal stubs since August 2018. Articles created before that seem to have more substance.[3] Be interesting to know when they were granted autopatrolled rights. --John B123 (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
John B123, per Special:UserRights/Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards: 17:39, 22 June 2009 Acalamari talk contribs changed group membership for Pharaoh of the Wizards from rollbacker to rollbacker and autopatrolled (On User:JVbot/patrol whitelist) (thank) Vexations (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Vexations: Thanks for that. --John B123 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Backlog, or lack thereofEdit

We've leveled off around the 1700-1900 articles level. But I was curious how many of those were old articles, and how many of them have been waiting a long time. As of this writing, there are only 26 articles in the queue over a month old, and most of those are articles created from redirects, etc. Nice job all of you who slog away at the back of the queue. Onel5969 TT me 11:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that while the backlog size is increasing again now, this doesn't appear to be for lack of effort on our end, as 6799 articles reviewed in the last week is the highest number I recall seeing on the new pages feed page. signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I've never looked too closely at the number of new articles being created each day/week/month but I would expect some ebb and flow to the year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I'm neurotic and look at the # in the queue on a daily basis. We got it down to slightly below 1800, and now it's back up to almost 2000. Yesterday, it was down in the mid-1800s, and between then and now about 1500 new articles were added. And they are not at the end of the queue, which is still quite low (38 over a month old, and 72 from 12/17 and back - which is where I left off today in my patrol - and 18 of those are marked for deletion, so someone's already looked at them). Onel5969 TT me 18:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Geography articlesEdit

Hi. Just wanted to point out that there's an editor doing yoeman's work on creating river articles, however, they are simply not supplying valid references to support all the information in the article. See this discussion on their talk page. Onel5969 TT me 16:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussions on the talk page seem to be having no effect, anybody any ideas? --John B123 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
John B123, I just keep removing the information. Hopefully, eventually they will get tired of having all that work erased. I don't think it's time for taking it to ANI yet. But maybe? Onel5969 TT me 00:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
But it will take consistency among all reviewers to get the point across. Onel5969 TT me 00:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
And the persistent ignorance continues. See my talk page, and then the above referenced discussion for my response. Onel5969 TT me 12:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
They're using navboxes for references now. [4] --John B123 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Andrei Andreev (lawyеr)Edit

Is it just my computer or is the "e" in lawyer in the title highlighted in green? --John B123 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

John B123, no. I think that's part of the script on Cyrillic homographs, which is discussed above. The "e" is an "е". Onel5969 TT me 18:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The creator was attempting to evade detection by using a different e than the correct one for Andrei Andreev (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). — JJMC89(T·C) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd forgotten all about that. --John B123 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


An RfC on the Subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) wording has been started and might be of interest to New page Patrollers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

NPPS - 500 or 1000 edits recommended to become a student?Edit

Howdy. I'm reading through NPPS and I notice it says 500 suggested edits in one spot, and 1000 farther down the page. Do we have a consensus on which is better? If so, I'm happy to edit the numbers to agree with each other. Personally, I'd suggest 1000, since deletion policy is complicated. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I don't know how others would think about this, but to me 1000 mainspace edits as a minimum requirement for a student at NPPS seems to be way too many, especially considering the minimum for the *NPP right itself* is 500 mainspace edits. Overly stringent requirements would do more harm than good to the community as it deters valuable contributors from joining the team. In any event, I think it should be within a tutor's discretion to take any students they deem appropriate, instead of adhering to any arbitrary edit count numbers. -- Dps04 (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it is 500 or 1000, the NPPS suggestion should harmonize with the NPP requirement. Personally, I think it should be a requirement of NPP that they complete the NPP school. If NPPS is made a requirement of NPP, than I would agree to the 500 limit. Onel5969 TT me 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
We have enough trouble finding new people to be NPP without adding another hoop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Good catch. I've aligned the number there to NPR minimums. Of course each trainer can decide whether or not to accept a student. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Tutorial changesEdit

I have, somewhat unexpectedly even to myself, begun to make changes to the Tutorial. My goals are to update to reflect current practice (much of the focus were on items true prior to WP:ACPERM) while also reflecting NPP values more explicitly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Japanese sourceEdit

Greetings. It's not on the NPP reliable sources list (one way or another), but does anyone have any knowledge of the reliability of (see here). I can't find anything about their editorial policies. There's a newer editor who is very diligently working to create anime articles with reliable sources. Onel5969 TT me 00:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, looking through the website with a translator, it's very clearly professional but isn't forthcoming with editors' names or bylines and appears to run paid content. My assessment is that it's better off avoided. signed, Rosguill talk 04:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, thanks. That was pretty much what I thought, but I wanted at least one other set of eyes to give their opinion. Onel5969 TT me 12:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Color coded flowchartEdit

Hello all. I've been studying NPP lately. The flowchart is fantastic--great job to whoever made it. I added some colors to it in case anybody is interested. [5] If you find it useful, let me know and I can upload it to Wikipedia in whatever format you prefer (png, svg, pdf). Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem with reviewers incorrectly marking new articles as orphans.Edit

On at least three separate occasions recently I have had multiple new articles incorrectly marked as orphans by three separate reviewers. Some of these articles were linked on creation to existing redlinks, and all were linked within minutes of creation to multiple others by me. This indicates a serious flaw in how some reviewers approach their task, and needs to be fixed without delay. As well as the time wasted fixing these instances it reflects badly on my performance. Downsize43 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969: As the most recent of the reviewers mentioned above I look forward to your explanation for your actions. Downsize43 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a function of the curation tools, simple as that. Sorry you feel affronted by it. Onel5969 TT me 12:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Without knowing which articles you are referring to it's difficult to give a specific answer. In general terms, articles are tagged in the new pages feed if orphans. You can also see if a page is an orphan from the "what links here" link on the page. However, as both of these are cached recent changes may not show up. It gets more complicated with navboxes. If you add a link to a page in a navbox, the pages using the navbox will not show up in "what links here" until those pages are next saved, which may not be for months. --John B123 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
If it is a function of the curation tools then they are either inadequate or not being used correctly. Whatever happened to common sense and not biting the user? I have tried the alternative of creating redlinks in existing articles before creating the new article. Unfortunately this attracts the attention of the anti-redlink brigade and said links are too frequently reverted within minutes of creation. Downsize43 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Downsize43, I reviewed 40 articles that you created that were reviewed. 10 of those had been tagged with {{orphan}}. Telita, Tasmania, Trenah, Tasmania, Dairy Plains, Tasmania, Jackeys Marsh, Tasmania, Oaks, Tasmania, Quamby Bend, Tasmania, South Nietta, Tasmania, South Preston, Tasmania, East Ridgley, Tasmania and Round Hill, Tasmania.
When I look at Round Hill , I see that it is linked from City of Burnie, List of localities in Tasmania, Wivenhoe, Tasmania , and Chasm Creek, Tasmania. The tag was placed on 17:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC) The link from City of Burnie to Round Hill was made in this edit, on 11:39, 16 January 2021. You're correct that the link existed prior to the tag being added, but I suspect that when the reviewer clicked on what links here, they did not see those articles listed. The problem may have been that there is some lag in database that prevents the what links here function to work immediately. The function is documented here. I suspect that either purging the page or making a Wikipedia:Purge#Null_edit will resolve the issue. As far as I know, this is not caused by a problem with the curation tools. Note to reviewers: You may want to purge pages before reviewing them. Vexations (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
When you create redlinks prior to article creation, did you explicitly indicate that it was in preparation for that in the edit summary? If not, that might have avoided some removals, and if such edits do happen to be carelessly reverted, then one additional re-revert to ensure that whoever is doing it was doing it deliberately (which would require discussion) would be reasonable. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Vexations: Thank you for your interest in my little problem. I will try adding a redlink to List of localities in Tasmania, with a suitable edit summary, just before I publish the new article. Downsize43 (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Arabic/Islamic expertiseEdit

There are a slew of recent articles (over 30 currently in the queue), by User:Kalimoun, many (if not all) of which have been tagged as essay-like. Need one of us who has more expertise than I do to take a look at these and evaluate them. In my opinion, most do appear to have a bit of WP:SYNTH about them. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 14:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kalimoun seems to tag his articles with {{more citations needed}} and {{essay-like}} himself.[6] I'd also be happy if somebody with more expertise in this area were to look at them. --John B123 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes I’ve passed a couple and read several more which I haven’t decided what to do about. They’re quite heavy chewing. Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Peculiarly, this appears to be unnecessary self-flagellation on part of the author. I certainly wouldn't describe something like Fajr nafl prayer as essay-like by our definitions, i.e. structurally made up like an argument with a specific target. The current article format seems fine. Can't quite judge the "additional citations" issue, as the refs are are all to Arabic sources, but most of them seem to be to different pages in the same work, so maybe that's justified. Anyway, suggest leaving in the citations needed tag and removing the essay one. Oh, and running them through Refill - that's a whole lotta naked html refs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "New pages patrol/Reviewers".