User talk:Zippybonzo/Training/NPP/Karnataka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Notability in a nutshell

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.



Welcome New Trainee!

Instructions: Karnataka, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.

Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

Curation tool video
Learn the basic flow chart.
When in doubt refer to this flow chart.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the curation tool video in the right margin, and also review NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page. You cannot possibly over-ping me.

Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP:PAGs as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part so we can discuss your responses or any questions you may have before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.

Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace. Oh, and here is a suggestion you should consider before you begin. At the bottom of this page is a tip section which is worth reviewing because there are some handy scripts you can add to your user common.js that may prove quite helpful for editing, and reviewing articles.

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!!

READ ME: When you are done with the above, feel free to move on to part 1 whenever you feel free. In addition, if you have discord, please consider sending me a friend request (I'm zippybonzo) so I can invite you to my special NPPSCHOOL server to help with coordinating the Live reviews, and to help you with any questions you may have. Thank you, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zippybonzo hi, thanks for traning me. I've sent you a request - myserver. So my tasks now are to read each guideline and summarise what I've learned, correct? — Karnataka talk 11:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. correct. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 11:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding signatures so it's easier for me to type a response — Karnataka talk 14:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zippybonzo I've finished part 1, will move onto group 2 — Karnataka talk 17:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry part 2 — Karnataka talk 17:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll mark them over the weekend. If you have any questions ping me on discord or open a ticket in the server :). Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 17:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zippybonzo finished part 2 — Karnataka talk 18:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zippybonzo finished part 3 — Karnataka talk 19:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zippybonzo finished part 4 — Karnataka talk 20:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zippybonzo finished part 5 — Karnataka talk 21:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol you are fast. I'll check them tomorrow and make the live reviews up with discord :). Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 22:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (Pt. 1)[edit]

This is the decider if any subject needs its own article on Wikipedia. Notability, unlike what many think may be notable, has a completely different meaning in the context of Wikipedia. YouTubers, who may have over 10M subscribers may be famous, but not covered enough to warrant its own article on Wikipedia. Articles must meet either the GNG or SNG criteria, and not be excluded under WP:NOT. It's important to note that this guideline only applies to stand-alone articles, too. — Karnataka talk 13:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY good. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline is the main method used to determine whether a topic or subject is presumed to be suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia. This is done through noting whether and how often the topic or subject is described with direct significant coverage (talking in-depth about the subject, so a new reader would have an idea about what the subject is) in multiple reliable sources (sources that take care of their editorial quailty) that are independent of the topic - this includes not just the website itself (if it's online), but also who is writing the article or journal. The GNG guideline is usually applied to topics that do not have guidelines of their own, with subject-specific essays like WP:NSOFTWARE being used as extra guidance on how to apply the criteria. — Karnataka talk 12:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY good. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are a type of notability guideline that are for specific types of subjects and provide extra guidance on whether a subject meets the general notability guideline. For example, having two or more in-depth reviews will presume a film to be notable - something that is not mentioned in the GNG but clarified in the film's SNG, which helps users not familiar with a topic (like films) understand whether a specific film should be included in Wikipedia. Some SNGs also give exceptions to certain subjects, like WP:GEOFEAT requiring just a cultural/national heritage label to be presumed notability. There are also many essays available that are formatted like SNGs like WP:NMEDIA that provide assistance on how to decide whether a media medium is notable, and WikiProject essays like WP:NYOUTUBE that do the same thing. — Karnataka talk 13:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY nice. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 13:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is another SNG which clarifies what types of sources companies and organizations need to consider them as notable, and is extremely important because companies have a lot to gain through having a Wikipedia articles about themselves - therefore may find as many loopholes as possible if this SNG isn't applied properly by reviewers. One of the main problems with the business side of sourcing is that most sources may be just be updates about company issues like stock updates and press releases, which should not be considered independent or of significant coverage. The NCORP guideline provides a method of checking sources as well, because sources must be of high quality. The professors SNG is also interesting because it makes the scope for professors to be notable much narrower, although this may not apply to all professors. — Karnataka talk 16:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY yep, nice. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline shows how one should decide whether a source is reliable or not. When in doubt, one can check at RSP for what community consensus states, or ask at RSN to check for consensus on whether a source is reliable. Source evaluation should be based on whether the source covers a broad perspective, and has good reliability (such as good editorial control). Three things to consider are the source itself, who created it, and the source's publisher, and noting that reliability falls on a spectrum. For example, The Times of India is a widely used source, however is known for accepting payments for a political bias. So, TOI's political articles may be less reliable than their television-centric articles, for example. It is also important to consider the age of a source, as older sources about technology may not be relevant to today's world and may only be reliable to verify a historical point. Sometimes, sources published by a subject itself can be used, however it does not go towards establishing notability and can only be used for certain things as long as its authenticity is not questionable and is not an exceptional claim, but an article should not be fully based on such sources. — Karnataka talk 17:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY good. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
I would first check if the article meets any of the speedy deletion criteria, by checking if the article is promotional, checking the copyvio tool, , whether if there is some sort of significance, etc. If any applied, I would use page curation to apply a relevant tag. I cannot find a speedy deletion tag, I would move on by checking the sources and attempting to connect the subject to an SNG topic, so I know which type of SNG guideline the subject falls under. If I cannot do this, I will use the GNG instead and move onto reviewing the article with the criteria that I have selected. — Karnataka talk 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)[edit]

Sometimes, people may err when trying to do something useful, and it's important to assume that in these cases one is trying to help build an encyclopedia. When everyone decides to think that a new user who accidentally makes a Manual of Style mistake is trying to vandalise, this user may feel demotivated and leave the encyclopedia, where all they needed was just an explanation on what the Manual of Style is to become an active contributor to Wikipedia. This heavily ties into both the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers guideline where it's important to ensure that newcomers are properly guided with kindness and patience.
This contrasts to Wikipedia:Competence is required where it's highlighted that how much people may be trying to build an encyclopedia, their mistakes do contribute to a mess. And when this is repeated, editors should realise that editing may not be their task and stop editing. However, this should not be used all the time and only when one's misguided efforts turn into disruption. — Karnataka talk 17:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY good. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies of living people are an extremely sensitive topic because the slightest of defamation can lead to very serious legal consequences, which makes it extremely important that Wikipedia gets it right every time - this even extends to usernames selected by different Wikipedia users. Biographies must contain no original research, a balanced neutral point of view, and fully verifiable claims. Wikipedia's inline citations policy requires an ILC for almost every statement made on a BLP, which shows how important ensuring citations are made properly and every statement is fully verifiable. Furthermore, BLPs have to be maintained - with over a million articles, a collective effort has to be taken to ensure that BLPs are free of errors, including that editors with a COI do not edit biography article. — Karnataka talk 17:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY good. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undisclosed paid editing is a type of COI editing where one receives payments to create or maintain an article, but does not disclose this. This is against Wikimedia's policies and one must declare this as their main intent of editing is not to further the encyclopedia however instead make a profit through their editing, just like COI where the intent may be to promote their interest in some way. The problem of COI is that users may not follow Wikipedia's editing guidelines, and may use primary sources or their original research/knowledge to contribute. These types of users may also want to limit the amount the negatives mentioned about their subject, thus being promotional and not meeting NPOV. — Karnataka talk 17:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY good. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline shows that the copyright for Wikipedia articles are not owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. However, they are instead held by the authors, or Wikipedia's contributors under a CC licence to Wikipedia. When reviewing a page, one must be very careful by checking copyvios and CSD tagging the pages when appropriate, or reverting to a version without a copyright violation and requesting for revision suppression. — Karnataka talk 17:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
☒N I'd like you to elaborate on the process of dealing with copyright violations a bit more. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zippybonzo Definitely. Copyright violations can be found through Google searches, by searching a snippet of text with quotation marks, however tools such as Earwig's detector and copyleaks are much more efficient as they can be able to detect paraphrasing in an article too.
If there has been an instance of a copyright violation, firstly one should remove the copyright material with linking the source in the edit summary, adding a template to state this has been done which would automatically request an administrator to delete revisions in the page history as well.
When all of an article violates copyright, the entire article should be speedy deleted if there is no safe version to revert to and no other editor successfully rewrites the content - as long as the CSD criteria is met. — Karnataka talk 16:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{[tick}} good. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxes are just articles that have the sole objective of tricking users, it has its own CSD tag but should only be used if the article is a blatant hoax, such as the lead saying Donald Trump was the President of China - which is obviously a hoax. It's stated that people usually try to create articles just to test the system - there are harsh punishments for this, noting how hoaxes are a form of vandalism, with the only thing being that they're less obvious. Sometimes hoaxes may be picked up by the media and reported on - damaging Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia, so it's very important that hoaxes don't slip in and are removed as quickly as possible, and it's why reviewing sources properly are extremely important. — Karnataka talk 18:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY good. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page in any namespace that attempts to attack or threaten the subject of the article (usually BLPs or companies) using unsourced or poorly sourced material, probably from unreliable sources like tabloids, etc. This type of content is extremely harmful for Wikipedia's reputation, which is why a CSD tag exists for this also. If the article's subject is notable but the existing page primarily attacks the subject or a living person with no proper version to revert to, then the attack parts should be deleted and replaced with an appropriate stub article. — Karnataka talk 18:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY good. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communications (Pt. 3)[edit]

This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related. Also see Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Disputes and consensus.

  • Discussions with creators of new pages
Discussions relating to new pages can help get Wikipedia the result it needs for a suitable article. When one decides to collaborate with a potential page creator by giving proper advice and giving feedback, the new user will not only feel encouraged to complete those suggestions, they'll feel encouraged to create much more pages, thus improving the encyclopedia. — Karnataka talk 19:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template notifications vs manually notification/discussion
Template notifications can alert a user that they've done something obvious. If they understand exactly why they received a template, then there will be little problem - the user will rectify their mistake, and move on. However, when one doesn't understand what they've done wrong, they'll either want to discuss the issue, or will feel demotivated to edit. Therefore, templates should really be used when the issue is obvious, and attempt to add some sort of humanly touch if the situation is not-at-all obvious. 19:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
This essay Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! perfectly explains why tone, clarity and knowledge is extremely important. Page creators are often new editors who won't understand what these acronyms mean, and it's important that you explain anything you do to users. Templates and talkback usually have this information in them therefore making it easier to use those instead, however when engaging with a new user about a topic such as notability it would be much better to give a brief explanation of the guideline you're trying to show as well as the link, instead of just the latter. — Karnataka talk 19:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilove/positive comments
WikiLoves and positive comments are a nice way to show that one has made a very good or decent effort in their task, or a way to encourage a user to continue what they're doing. One can give WikiLoves by using the thank feature or click the heart on a talk page (I'm not sure if this is from a gadget, but this is a way I can use it) — Karnataka talk 18:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the easiest way to inform someone that they're doing something wrong, and can be applied in a few seconds. Several anti-vandal tools can quickly apply these, and then automatically report users to AIV when its suitable - it's easy for one to do these manually too, as long as you can remember the warning templates and that you have to substitute them. — Karnataka talk 19:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that like I said for the second bullet point, if the wrongdoing isn't that obvious a friendly talk page message can do, and if it's an inconsistent mistake from a usually consistent editor, one can use the trout template instead. — Karnataka talk 18:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY good. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion (Pt. 4)[edit]

AfD is one of the final steps of reviewing an article - if the article doesn't meet the CSD criteria, PROD criteria or speedy keep critera, and should be used as an alternative to PROD if a PROD on an article has been declined or is likely to be declined. Articles with subjects that do not meet the notability criteria should only be sent - this includes attempting to find reliable sources that meet the subject's SNG or the GNG, and not just basing a deletion nomination with the sources on the article. The steps used to check whether an article should be nominated for deletion or just tagged depends on carrying out the BEFORE check: the SD, PROD, SK criteria, checking if the article can be improved rather than deleted, and then trying to find sources for an article though Google, Google Books, Google News (+ archive), and if appropriate a Google Scholar search. I also use JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library as well. — Karnataka talk 19:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PROD is a type of deletion that is used when it is expected that no one will oppose the deletion in any way, including the page creator. PRODs can also only be done once for an article - if the PROD is declined by simply removing the PROD tag, it can no longer be PROD'd again and AFD will have to done instead. Others can also co-PROD an article to show support. BLPPROD is an alternative to PROD where there are no sources of any form on the BLP article - the PROD can be removed when at least one source is added. — Karnataka talk 19:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... is a process when articles are deleted due to minimal AFD participation, however any user is allowed to request the article to be undeleted at REFUND like how a PROD works - because at this point there is a user who opposes the deletion. When there is minimal participation at an AFD but at least one user gives a keep argument, the result will usually end up as no consensus instead. — Karnataka talk 20:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A soft redirect is invoked when an article should belong at a sister project, such a commonly used word with no encyclopedic interest being redirected to Wiktionary instead. An article should usually be transwikified instead. — Karnataka talk 20:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion is a way to quickly delete an article if there is no chance of an article surviving, which can be done without any discussion - which is why the set of criteria for this is very specific. Unlike PROD, creators cannot remove the CSD tag but must instead contest it - this puts a talk page message with the page. Sometimes there are non-criteria which should not be used for CSD located at NOTCSD. — Karnataka talk 20:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)[edit]

Tagging usually provides prompts for what needs to be fixed in an article, and generally should be avoided if one can fix the issues themselves. A drive-by tag is when someone completely unrelated to the article's development adds a tag, and it would be useful to explain the addition of the tag in the talk page. Tags without a rationale can be easily removed because there would be little justification for it - so it would be best to understand an article, what needs to be improved, and try to improve it, if you cannot do so add a tag and justify the tag in the talk page, unless the reasoning is obvious like an uncategorized tag. — Karnataka talk 20:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories work like an index of Wikipedia articles for a topic - categories are basically navigation pages where you can find a list of articles that connect to the topic of your choice - a generic category is 1954 births, where people born in 1992 are listed. All articles should have at least one generic category, then specific categories. For example, a biography of an Indian actor can have the generic categories of Living people and 1954 births, then specific categories like Tamil male actor, then a much more specific category like South Indian International Movie Awards winners. Having an uncategorized tag on a page is extremely unnecessary because lots of categories can be easily applied to a topic, and its very easy to do so through page settings too. Like I described, categories work like an index so living people should always be listed with last name first, which is where sort keys are important - this describes how articles are ordered. — Karnataka talk 21:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY got the message but idk if 1954 births lists the people born in 1992. :) Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry that was a mistake, I originally was just going to use Category:1992 births as an example but then chose to expand the response with R. Sarathkumar as an example - i changed the category year but forgot to change that — Karnataka talk 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Exercise[edit]

Before you begin, read the Notability in a nutshell banner at the top of this page, study it and think hard about the message it is sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, please do not hesitate to take action as you would normally do as a bona fide patroller.

I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. The articles I've chosen are unreviewed, but it is possible they will have been reviewed by the time you get to them, so it is crucial to begin your reviews as quickly as possible. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary - take action as you would if you were reviewing them for NPP.

1. Mutate (Marvel Comics)

a) I first checked whether the article contained any sources, of which there were none. The article is free of a promotional tone, and is mostly a definition of a term. I cannot find any sources to expand this article on or verify notability, so I would PROD the article. — Karnataka talk 08:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Good, I went ahead and draftified it as it had previously been PRODded and I personally prefer Draftification, would be better off on Fandom really. Just to confirm, did you do a copyvio check? Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes through a google search, the copyvio site was taking time to load. — Karnataka talk 09:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Tokyo Melody: A Film about Ryuichi Sakamoto

a) I first checked whether the lead was promotional in nature, which is not. The article's topic is a documentary, and I could use the film SNG for guidance. The article has 2+ full-length reviews and more sources discussing, so I could presume notability through this and therefore mark the article as reviewed. — Karnataka talk 08:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY yes, good. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. 1997 Arizona Wildcats football team

a) Prose and article is okay - no copyvios and promotional language, however sources are mostly inaccessible due to them being paper copies - with no links to a digital version. I could find three newspapers and then multiple more results in Newspapers.com in TWL, so I found no issues and would mark the article as patrolled. — Karnataka talk 09:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that I found the sources presently in the article on TWL, and had checked them for SIGCOV before concluding to this — Karnataka talk 11:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY I’m liking how much you use TWL. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 17:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. Akash Srivatsa

Copyvio flags are all cited quotes that come under fair use. The article does not contain promotional language. Sources are not independent, consist of interviews and trivial mentions of him as the director of certain films. However the article does meet WP:NDIRECTOR due to co-directing two notable films so it would be notable. I would tag the article for more BLP sources, then patrol the article. — Karnataka talk 09:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 17:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5. Cinta Rodríguez

a) Prose is okay, and is a stub article with no promotional nature. There are no copyvio violations, however the sources are Spanish so with a machine translation I can see that sources only give a trivial mention of the subject - which only shows that she was a player. Other statements like birthday remains unknown - this does not meet GNG or athlete SNG so I would PROD the article. — Karnataka talk 09:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Evaluation[edit]

Once I have completed the evaluation and you have passed the course, you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review. @Karnataka: Congratulations! You have finished the training and passed. You may now apply for the NPR user right. Please reference this discussion. I would like it if you took the actions suggested above (with the obvious exception of patrolling). Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tips & scripts[edit]

  • User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool – it adds a small linked menu bar on the top right side of article pages as follows: [ History * Log * Filter * Talk Page * Notice * NPP Flowchart ]
  • User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft – important script that is used to WP:DRAFTIFY articles (move to draft space), including cleanup and author notification.
  • Wikipedia:New pages patrol is the foundation on which we operate. Add the link to your bookmarks menu for easy access.
  • User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js - a very useful tool and easy to install. The script prepends a small icon to each citation in the Reference section indicating the grading and type of source; most are in sync with WP:RSP.
  • User:Headbomb/unreliable – another somewhat useful tool that grades sources using highlight colors –
  • User:Evad37/duplinks-alt - highlights duplicate wikilinks. We should only wikilink once, sometimes twice if wikilinked in the lead and again further enough down in the article that it would prove useful. When reviewing, you can quickly find and eliminate wikilink overkill.

NPP Forums[edit]

Userbox[edit]

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

This User went through the rigors of WP:NPP school and graduated!!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zippybonzo/Training/NPP/Karnataka&oldid=1169372220"