User:Cassiopeia/NPPS/Modussiccandi

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

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.

General notability guidelines

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

Answer: Given that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and that conflicts are settled by consensus, it is indispensable that good faith be assumed. If we start to assume that others have made mistakes/problematic edits in bad faith, we are not contributing to a civilised debate: when both parties to an argument believe that the other is acting in bad faith, they will resort to unsubstantiated or personal accusations. Such arguments do nothing to improve Wikipedia in a constructive manner. Therefore, it is best to assume good faith — even when hard pressed — because in this way we are much more likely to actually correct our and other's mistakes.

When it comes to new editors, assuming good faith and civility are especially important. Newcomers often make mistakes unwittingly. They are unlikely to be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines. If one were to criticise them harshly ('bite'), they might feel that their contribution to the project is not welcome. Thus, an enthusiastic future contributor would be scared away from Wikipedia. Instead, one should assume good faith, and approach new editors in a friendly and welcoming manner. Of course, it is still necessary to help them correct their mistakes, but that ought to be done in a constructive and beginner-friendly manner. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Very well. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: A topic merits inclusion in Wikipedia if it has received substantial coverage in secondary sources (e.g. books, academic journals, newspapers). The coverage has to come from a source that is not directly connected or affiliated with the topic. For instance, a high school student is not notable because he or she appeared in the school's yearbook. Another important factor is the quality of these sources: they should come from a professional publisher either in print or online. For example, a topic mentioned in the Financial Times may be notable, while a topic mentioned in a blog distributed via social media is not. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. 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) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: A step by step instructions on how to "Change a car tire" should not be considered a notable topic on Wikipedia. The reason for this is that Wikipedia is not a manual or textbook; Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that offers a summary of accepted information on a given notable topic, not instructions for all manners of tasks. 'Car' and 'car tyre', on the other hand, are notable topics and should be covered on Wikipedia in an encyclopaedic fashion. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Right as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how to manual site.

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 general notability guideline (GNG) is Wikipedia's fundamental measuring stick for determining whether a topic is notable. In principle, a topic should meet the GNG in order to be included in Wikipedia. However, in some areas (e.g books, sports, companies) specific notability guidelines (SNG) have been created. Although they derive from the GNG, they are usually easier to meet because they have been designed with a specific set of topics in mind. A topic needs to meet either of GNG or SNG.

When patrolling a new page, I would first check whether the topic meets GNG, since this is the fundamental measuring stick topics should meet. If the topic does not meet GNG, I would see whether there is a SNG for the topic in question. If so, this will then be used for evaluating the topic's notability. The topic can be considered notable, should it meet the SNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Right. Example: certain subjects would not meet GNG due to the fact that no article talk about them directly in length and in dept such the academics- WP:PROF - who would received few or none independence source talk about them (we would see BBC write an article about car stuck in a tree see here but not the President of Australian National University would be hard to find) Other SGN such as WP:NCORP and WP:NPOL specify a very strict set of source criteria and requirements respectively. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Specific notability guidelines

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: In principle, it would be possible to create an article about the "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2019 because the event (Summer Olympic Games) is notable and almost certain to take place. These factors override the principle that Wikipedia should not be used to speculate about future events. But, in this case, the topic should be considered not notable. The SNG at WP:EVENT#Future Events state that articles about future events may be notable if they are verifiable. If no sources are given, the content of the article is not verifiable and therefore not notable per WP:EVENT#Future Events. Nevertheless, notability could be demonstrated if reliable sources were to be added. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. It would be a good practice as a reviewer, if you are familiar with the subject, to find sources (3-5 IRS (independent, reliable sources) and add them in to the new page instead of just tagging "unsecured template" into the page. I have done that many times to turn an unsourced article to sourced / notable articles in Wikipedia. 11:12, 21 August 2020 (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 subject is not notable under (1) WP:ORGSIG (2) because no organisation is inherently notable. The specifics (date, place, specialisation, sum of money) are not in themselves markers of notability. Only through reliable sources can it be determined whether this start up is notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. 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) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

7. Nascimento Ferreira who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 8-0.

Answer: The subject is notable under (1) NMMA#1 (2) because the athlete has fought 8 fights in the Ultimate Fighting Championships, which is a top-tier mixed martial arts league per WP:NMMA. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

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) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (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: The subject is not notable under (1) WP:NFF (2) because as of today, 20 August 2020, the film is not yet in production. WP:NFF states that films that are not confirmed to be in principal photography should not have their own articles. However, information about the film is allowed to be included in the Suleiman the Magnificent article, also per WP:NFF. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (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: The subject is notable under (1) POLITICIAN#2 because (2) the candidate has been subject of significant local news coverage. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

YN. Most politician would have some coverage during their campaign for the position. We would accept the article if the subject has "won" the election but yet to assume the office. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi My mistake, it is a cross and not a tick; however, my comment/explanation is correct. Pls ping to make sure you have read this. Again, my bad. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Hi, I've read your comment. How come you are telling me this now? No problem, anyway. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Modussiccandi I happened to look at your program and noticed I placed wrong "check". I didnt want you to assume since I had marked a check and you thought the explanation you gave was correct and might not notice my explanations wich is opposite to you answer and you would go on and review WP:NPOL incorectly. Anyhow it was my mistke and my bad. Hope all is well with you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: The subject is not notable (1) under all criteria of WP:SINGER (2) because the singer has not received any public recognition and is not affiliated with other notable musicians. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Y Good.11:12, 21 August 2020 (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: The subject is notable under (1) NACADEMIC#5 and #8 (2) because he is a chaired professor at a university (University of Zurich) and because he is the editor in chief of a notable journal (Journal of Economic Psychology). Modussiccandi (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Y 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) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

12. Alistair Overeem

Answer: The subject is notable under (1) WP:NKICK and NMMA#1 2) because he has fought for the world title of several major kickboxing organisations and because he has fought in more than three Ultimate Fighting Championship matches. Modussiccandi (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. 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) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

13. Jennifer Lopez

Answer: The subject is notable (1) under SINGER#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #8, #11, #12 and NACTOR#1, #2, #3 (2) because she demonstrably meets the majority of SNG for singers and actors. Modussiccandi (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Y Good. Cassiopeia^(talk)

14. Three Mile Island accident

Answer: The subject is notable under (1) EVENTCRIT#1 and 2 (2) because the event had a lasting effect on the history of nuclear power in the United States and because it was covered by a variety of media for a sustained period of time. Modussiccandi (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

15. Persepolis

Answer: The subject is notable under (1) WP:NBUILDING (2) because of the site's historical importance which can be demonstrated by reliable, third-party sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Modussiccandi 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) 08:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have finished the first Assignment 1. I was not entirely sure about question 4: is this the right way to decide between GNG and SNG? Looking forward to hearing your feedback. Modussiccandi (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Hi, You finished the assignment in such a speed. I will review it tmr when I have a block of free time for I was catching up with some updates editing in Wikipedia today. May I ask where do you live? So I would know our time zone differences and would take note when reviewing/replying to your messages. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Please take all the time you need to review the assignment. I live in Cambridge, UK, so I'm in British Summer Time (UTC+1). With that being said, I often work late into the night, which should make it easier if you live in North America (of course, I don't know if you do). Best Modussiccandi (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Well-done! See the comments above. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move to next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you for your comments. I didn't realise not all of Ferreira's fights were under UFC promotion. Admittedly, I have a poor grasp of mixed martial arts. So I'll be sure to review only on sports I'm broadly familiar with. Other than that, I'm ready to move on to the next assignment. Best Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Sources

Sources

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.

---

1.

Topic	Explanation	5 Examples	Comment by Cass
Reliable source	A source can be considered reliable if it has been published by a reliable author and undergone a thorough process of factchecking. Such sources will often be pieces of scholarship which are subject to peer-review before publication. They may also come from news outlets, of which some have a longstanding reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In both cases, not all sources will be equally reliable: a book published from Oxford University Press (OUP) is very likely to be reliable, while one published by a little known press may not be. Age also matters when determining reliability: a book that was published by OUP in 1850 may contain information that is considered flawed today.	(example)The Guardian newspaper Financial Times newspaper reports from Reuters news agency books from Oxford University Press The BBC Nature (journal)	Y. Good. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
User generated sources	A source is considered user-generated if it has been created by a platform's user without a formal process of vetting. Such sources include profiles on social media platforms, blogs and discussion forums. Since they are not subject to fact-checking, they are generally considered unreliable.	Facebook twitter Linkedin Wikipedia blogs	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Non Independent source	The creators of some sources stand to gain from the subject they discuss. Because of such vested interests, they often choose to portray subjects in a way that does not reflect a NPOV. Therefore, these sources should not be used to back up fact statements on Wikipedia. If they are used in articles, it necessary to express clearly the the information comes from an interested source ('The company states that...').	The website of Berlin's tourism department The website of the Conservative Party (UK) press release from Apple about a new product J.K. Rowling's website about the Harry Potter universe any source that is written by a person's family, friends or employer	Y also subject marketing agency, company they affiliated/associated with (such as sponsor), paid editor (subject pays the editor to write about them) and etc. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

---

2.

Type	Explanation	Sources (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary)	Comment by Cass
Primary	Sources are considered primary if they provide first-hand information on a topic. They can take many shapes including eyewitness accounts, creative texts, experiment results, historical documents and many more. Primary sources may be used in Wikipedia only to make simple descriptive statements. If an analysis or discussion of primary sources is needed, it must come from a secondary source and not from the editor themselves.	(example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results poems diaries speeches eyewitness report of an accident interviews historical documents (e.g. letters, charters, edicts) audio recordings photographs video recordings of an event video games statistics from a sports match musical notations works of art notice of a government decision minutes of a committee meeting inscriptions	Y all personal social media websites, Press release and etc
Secondary	A source is considered secondary if it contains an analysis, synthesis, discussion, evaluation etc. of primary sources. They do not contain the author's personal experience (in that case, they would be primary), although they may contain opinions on their subjects. Most information on Wikipedia should be derived from secondary sources, as long as their reliable and independent of the subject.	(example) newspaper monographs scholarly articles magazines online news publications reviews of films, books etc.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Tertiary	Sources are considered tertiary if they summarise or catalogue primary and secondary sources. Such sources include, among others, encyclopaedias, compendia, bibliographies, handbooks and textbooks. Wikipedia itself is considered a tertiary source. In Wikipedia articles, tertiary sources may be used for topics that involve various primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia itself, however, may not be used as a tertiary source in articles.	(example) encyclopedias bibliographies textbooks comprehensive dictionaries (like the Oxford Classical Dictionary) Wikipedia handbooks	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

---

3.

Subject	Primary	Secondary	Tertiary	Comment by Cass
Example: Art	Example:Sculpture	Example:Article critiquing the sculpture	Example:Encyclopedic article on the sculptor
History	Eyewitness report of a battle	Historian's synthesis of the battle	Encyclopaedia entry about the campaign	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Science	Numerical results of an experiment	Analysis of the experiment in a journal article	Physics textbook for undergraduates	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Athletes	Stats sheet from a basketball match	News story about a player's performance	Guidebook to the player's league	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Answer: Given that anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is important that everything we add to articles be verifiable. If this requirement did not exist, Wikipedia would not be more than a personal blog where users upload whatever content they like. Verifiability is also important for establishing whether a topic is notable: notability can only be establish without doubt if we can retrace all the information on a subject to a reliable and independent source. Another reason for verifiability is the policy of no original research. Since Wikipedia is not a place for new ideas to be articulated, editors must show that the content they add originates from a reliable source. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Content needs to verifiable so we may verify if the content claimed could be supported by source and is the source independent and reliable but it is not because it is the facts or true - see WP:But it's true!. If source indicated XXX is from Jamaica but XXX is actually from Cuba, we put XXX is from Jamaica in article as per source. We will correct the info when the sources (not need to be the same source) correct itself. For example Alexander the Great - How he die is based on which sources you read, from poising, to malaria and typhoid fever to infectious (meningitis) to acute pancreatitis and etc. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: In general, tertiary sources (such as Wikipedia) may be used as sources, though preferably in combination with secondary ones. However, Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source for an article. This is because Wikipedia has no fail-proof procedure for fact-checking and is therefore not a reliable source. Also, everything found on Wikipedia should be derived from a secondary source which are generally preferred to tertiary sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Y pls note the content in Wikipedia is only as good as the sourced provided. We dont use Wikipedia as a source but reader can check the info as per the source provided. In general we can not user Wikipedia as a source as per WP:CIRCULAR. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: The Guardian is considered a reputable source with a good record for fact-checking and accuracy. If the guardian were to report on a (hypothetical) allegation of financial misconduct by the paper's parent company Guardian Media Group, it would no longer be considered independent of the subject. This is how a source can be reliable but not independent. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Y Very good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: The English tabloid The Sun (United Kingdom) has a poor record of fact-checking and accuracy. It is therefore not a reliable source. If this newspaper were to write an article about the private live of a celebrity, the article might be independent of the subject but nevertheless non-reliable. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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, until his resignation on November 9, 2012 after his affair with Paula Broadwell was reported.

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

In 2003, Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the fall of Baghdad

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/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	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	The source is a major national newspaper	CNN is a reputable news agency	The source is entirely about the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893	The source is a major national news website	Although HuffPost has a mediocre record of reliability, the source was written by Associated Press authors, who are known for their reliability.	The subject and his affair are discussed in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012	The source appears to have been created by the subject's father	The source is a little-known website	Subject is mentioned only marginally	✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005	Vanity Fair is a major national publication	Vanity Fair is considered reliable, though generally better suited to content about popular culture	The source is about the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html	The source is a transcript of an interview with the subject	PBS is a national broadcaster and a trusted news source.	The subject is covered in detail	✘ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html	The Independent is a major UK newspaper	The Idnependent is a reliable source, especially before the abolition of its print edition	The subject is the focus of the article	✔ 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

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.

The subject is notable under (1) MILPEOPLE#4 and 5 because (2) he played an important part in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and because he was the commander of the International Security Assistance Force. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Huffpost - Although HuffPost contributors is considered not reliable in WP:RSP but if we look closely, the piece is written by By ANNE FLAHERTY, KIMBERLY DOZIER AND ADAM GOLDMAN, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. The Associated press is considered reliable source as they sell their news to other news agencies. However, the content is based on many individual opinions, for such I would talk it as not reliable sources. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

---

10.

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

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. In December 2018, Jordan and Rowan finished British Film Academy. 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/	The source credits BAFTA Wales fort he information. Since the subject is affiliated with BAFTA the source is not independent	IMDb contains user-generated content	The source is a short biography of the subject	✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales	Again, the subject is affiliated with BAFTA	BAFTA, being a major national charity, is likely to be reliable on entertainment matters	In its current form, the reference leads onto BAFTA Wales' homepage where no information about the subject becomes apparent	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125	Linkedin profiles are normally created by their subjects	Linkedin is user-generated and therefore unreliable	Profile of the subject	✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/	There does not seem to be a connection to the subject	Source is a little-known website	The source is about somebody other than the subject	✘ 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

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.

The subject is not notable under (1) WP:FILMMAKER because (2) he fails all relevant SNG and no reliable, independent source can be found that covers him significantly. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Note if a source is written/come from by the subject or associates of the subject then it is not independent nor reliable. Examples: sources from the club of a soccer player, interviews from the subject marketing teams/advertising teams, Facebook, Instagram, their twitter page and etc. As for the notability, the subject fails also fails WP:NACTOR. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

---

12.

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

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.instagram.com/martinahingis80/	The source was created by the subject	Instagram is user-generated and therefore not reliable	The source is the subject's profile	✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-us-open-hingis-20170910-story.html	The source is a major newspaper in the United States	As a major newspaper, the LA Times has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy	The source discusses the subject in detail	✔ Yes
	The source is from a major national publisher	The source was published by Potomac Books, a subsidiary of the University of Nebraska Press, which is a reputable publisher	The subject is discussed, but only in passing	✘ No
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/21171438/tennis-another-twist-bizarre-career-martina-hingis	The source is a major sport news site in the US	ESPN is a well established provider of sports news	The source discusses the subject in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/nov/01/tennis	The source is a major national paper in the UK	The source is considered a reliable source	The source covers the subject 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

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.

The subject is notable under (1) NTENNIS because (2) she meets the majority of relevant criteria and has been inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame, which constitutes criterion #1. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Subject pass WP:NTENNIS SSN (sport specific notability) - Full content from the article Martina Hingis would pass all the WP:NTENNIS criteria. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

---

14.

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. Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture." 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.

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/	The source is a major news publication	The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper, which are not always subject to thorough fact-checking	The source discussed the life of the subject in detail	✘ No
https://franklloydwright.org/work/	The source is affiliated with the subject	The source is published and is subject to professional oversight.	The subject is discussed in detail	✘ No
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm	The source is a major national provider of news	Businessweek is a reputable source	The subject is discussed in depth	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	The source is written by a third-party author	The source was published by Wiley	The source is a biography of the subject	✔ 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

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.

The subject is notable under (1) WP:ARCHITECT because (2) he meets the majority of relevant criteria by being regarded an important figure in the field, creating a well-known body of work that has received significant attention. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Full content from the article of Frank Lloyd Wright, he would pass all the all (1-4) WP:ARCHITECT criteria. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

---

16.

Sonny Bill Williams 2010

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

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	The source is major newspaper in the UK	The source is a tabloid newspaper with a poor record of fact-checking and accuracy	The subject is covered in depth	✘ No
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108	The source is affiliated with the subject's national team	The source is linked to New Zealand Rugby which is likely to be a reliable source for rugby related information	The source covers the subject in depth	✘ No
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308	The source is a major national newspaper in NZ	The source is a newspaper with a good record of reliability	The source covers the subject in detail	✔ Yes
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html	The source is a major national newspaper in Australia	The source appears to be a reputable news source	The subject is covered 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

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: The subject is notable under (1) WP:RLN (2) because he played in the 2013 Rugby League World Cup, he played in an international match against England and because he plays in Australia's National Rugby League. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Sonny Bill Williams (full content), the subject would also meet WP:NRU criteria 1, 2. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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"

Weekly charts

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

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

End-of-year charts

End-of-year chart (1991)	Position
Canada Top Singles (RPM)	3

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
	The source is a major national newspaper	The newspaper is considered reliable	The article is not strictly about the subject, but the mention is detailed enough	✔ Yes
	Billboard is a major national magazine	On matters of music I would consider the source reliable	The subject is covered only in passing	✘ No
				? Unknown
	Billboard is a major national magazine	On matters of music I would consider the source reliable	The subject is covered only in passing	✘ No
	The source was a major national newspaper in Canada	On matters of music I would consider the source reliable	The subject is covered only in passing	✘ No
				? Unknown
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

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 subject is notable under (1) WP:NSONG#1 because (2) it has been ranked on several national music charts. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Modussiccandi Good day. See Assignment 2 above. Please ping me when you have finished with the assignment and ready for a review. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Hi, you can see the " "Source assessment table" in "source editing" mode (which is part of your assignment). However, to see in "Visual editing" mode, pls click "show" next to " "Source assessment table". Have a wonderful Sunday. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you very much for the tip. The assignment is completed and ready for your feedback. I noticed that there isn't a clear-cut answer for some of the sources, especially when it comes to reliability. I hope that is not a problem. Also, one link in question 18 was dead and I didn't manage to find the source online. Best Modussiccandi (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Well-done. Let me know if you have any questions or ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks for the feedback. I would be more than happy to move on to the next assignment. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Content Policy

Article titles

Please read WP:TITLE and answer the questions below

1. Article name "Hannibal Barca" - Does the article name need to be change? and Why? (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general and statesman who is widely considered one of the greatest military commanders in history. His father, Hamilcar Barca, was a leading Carthaginian commander during the First Punic War (264–241 BC).

References

Answer: The article should be renamed to "Hannibal" because it is more recognisable , natural and more concise (all under WP:CRITERIA). All three sources provided call the subject "Hannibal" and thus it is likely that most English speakers would know this name only. Since his father is normally called "Hamilcar Barca", it is also more natural to call his son "Hannibal" as to avoid confusion between the two. Lastly, the surname is not needed to distinguish the article from others. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Under " in Recognizability" WP:CRITERIA - it is because the name "Hannibal" is the most commonly use - see WP:COMMONNAME.

Even though his name is Hannibal Barca, the article title is just taken his first name "Hannibal" as it is most common name which many sources have addressed him - We often heard the phrase "Hannibal Brought Rome To Its Knees". This also apply to subjects known by they nick names - such as professional wrestler CM Punk, whose real name is Phillip Jack Brooks, Roman emperor Caligula whose name is Gaius Caesar or a special way of addressing a subject such as Alexander the Great and not "just Alexander" or "Alexander III of Macedon". Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

---

2. Article name "Magic Johnson". Does the article name need to be change? and Why?(please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is an American retired professional basketball player and former president of basketball operations of the Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He played point guard for the Lakers for 13 seasons.

References

Answer: The article should not be renamed. Even though the subject's official name is Earvin Johnson, "Magic Johnson" is more recognisable, natural and precise (all under WP:CRITERIA). All sources provided call the subject "Magic Johnson" and the Britannica article has this as its article title, which indicates that most people would search for this name. The current name is also more precise since there is another former NBA player called Ervin Johnson. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Y same reason as per comment Q1. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Biographies of living persons

Please read WP:BLP and answer the questions below.

3. As per the texts below, pls explain the if the content is acceptable of inclusive and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Conor Anthony McGregor (born 14 July 1988) is an Irish professional mixed martial artist and boxer. His is a former Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) featherweight and lightweight champion.

On 15 August 2019, TMZ Sports published a video that appeared to show McGregor punching a man at The Marble Arch Pub in Dublin. The incident happened on 6 April and was originally reported by Irish media, although without the video that showed the attack. Irish police stated in April that they had opened an investigation. McGregor was charged with assault and first appeared in court on 11 October 2019.

In April 2019, McGregor is the father of Terri Murray's son, Clodagh. Murray bedded McGregor in 2017 at his hotel after the Aintree Grand National just four weeks bofore McGregor's girlfriend Dee Devlin gave birth to their son.

References

Answer: The first paragraph is sourced from a non-reliable source (ref. 1). But since its content is not likely to be challenged, it does not need to be removed immediately per WP:BLPRS. However, better sources should be easy to find for this.

The second paragraph covers material that is likely to be challenged and is likely to attract unverifiable gossip. The first sentence "On 15 August 2019, TMZ Sports published a video ..." is backed up by a source (ref. 2) of doubtful reliability per WP:RSP. In this case, I would allow the sentence to stand because it only states that "TMZ published a video" of the incident and the link leads to said video. The second sentence ("The incident happened on 6 April ...") is unsourced and should be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. The third sentence ("Irish police stated in April...") is sourced reliably (ref. 3) and is allowed to stand. The final sentence ("McGregor was charged with assault ...") is sourced by three sources of which only one (ref. 5) reliable beyond doubt. On the merits of the ESPN source, I would allow this sentence to be included in the article.

The third paragraph contains material that is likely to be challenged and contains gossip about the subject. There is no source to back up the information; therefore it should be removed without discussion per WP:BLPREMOVE. Also, the word "bedded" is not appropriate for a BLP article per WP:BLPSTYLE. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Y Very good. The content of Murray case was unsourced and but also is contentious material. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

---

4. As per the texts below, pls explain the if the content is acceptable of inclusive and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Diana Nyad (née Sneed; born August 22, 1949) is an American author, journalist, motivational speaker, and long-distance swimmer who lives in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. and could be contacted at +0-202-456-6213. Nyad gained national attention in 1975 when she swam around Manhattan (28 mi or 45 km) and in 1979 when she swam from North Bimini, The Bahamas, to Juno Beach, Florida (102 mi (164 km)). In 2013, on her fifth attempt and at age 64, she became the first person confirmed to swim from Cuba to Florida without the aid of a shark cage, swimming from Havana to Key West (110 mi or 180 km).

References

Answer: The first sentence is sourced from a reliable source (ref. 1), but it includes details about the subject (her address and phone number) which must not be included in Wikipedia for privacy reasons per WP:BLPPRIVACY. These details would need to be deleted. The second sentence ("Nyad gained national attention in 1975...") is not backed up by a source and the information is also not present in reference 2. The claims made in this sentence are likely to be challenged and thus need to be removed if no source can be provided per WP:BLPREMOVE. The third sentence ("In 2013, on her fifth attempt...") is backed up by a reliable source and can be included in the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Y However, the source does not indicate the address and phone number as they belong to the White House. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Images copyright

Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. Please answer the questions below and (1) with explanation based on Wikipedia guidelines and (2) provide the guidelines/links in your answer.

5. Could this image-1 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? and Why.

Answer- Explanation: The image may be uploaded into C:Main Page and can be used in Wikipedia because works produced by employees of US government agencies or military personnel has public domain status in the United States. The image was created by a Navy Seaman and published on the website of the Ministry of Defense. Therefore it is in the public domain. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: WP:COPYRIGHT#Works by the United States Federal Government

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

6. Could this image-2 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? and Why.

Answer- Explanation: The image could be uploaded into C:Main Page and can be used in Wikipedia because its creator has explicitly waved his or her copyright to the image via CC0. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: WP:IUP#Free licenses

Y. We also check the original site that the image is in PD (public domain). If we

click on the flickr link provided on the right of the image it will take your to [3] where it was uploaded by the owner and stated PD there. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

7. Could this image-3 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia?

Answer- Explanation: The image could be uploaded to C:Main Page and can be used in Wikipedia because it was made available at Pixabay and was thus released into the public domain via CC0. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline:WP:IUP#Free licenses and Pixabay being mentioned under WP:PDI

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

8. Could this image-4 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? and Why.

Answer- Explanation: The image could not be uploaded into C:Main Page and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Images of two dimensional objects do not generate copyright, which means that the image itself is not under copyright. However, the artwork depicted is very likely to have been published after 1925, in which case it would be under copyright in the US. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: WP:IUPC#Public domain

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Neutral point of view

P;lease read WP:NPOV and MOS:PUFF. Point out the WP:NPOV words/pharses and rewrite the paragraph on Question 9& 10 from a neutral point of view.

9. She is a brilliant boxer with a rare and exceptional beauty. She turned Pro at the age of 19 after winning one amateur fight on December 14, 2013 where she destroyed her opponent in 20 seconds. Her talent and marketability made her a fighter to watch right out the gate and she fought under XXX promotion on her next fight on February 2014.

Answer: The following words and phrases must be avoided per WP:NPOV: "brilliant" (peacock term), "rare and exceptional beauty" (opinion as fact, peacock terms), "destroyed" (peacock term), "talent and marketability" (opinion as fact), "to watch right out the gate" (clichéd language.

Neutral point of view version: [The subject] is a professional boxer. Having won one amateur fight on 14 December 2013, she became signed a professional contract. In her next fight in February 2014, she fought under XXX promotion. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

10. He is a popular, acclaimed Bulgarian actor, who loves by all who have watched his films. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry since he was at the tender, innocent of the age of 14 and he has featured in 44 films.

Answer: The following words and phrases must be avoided per WP:NPOV: "popular, acclaimed" (peacock terms), "loved by all" (opinion as fact), "tender, innocent" (clichéd language).

Neutral point of view version: [The subject] is a Bulgarian actor. A native of Veliko Tarnovo, he began his acting career at the age of 14 and has since featured in 44 films. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

11. Please read WP:DUE and in your own words, please explain why it is important to provide balance and due weight content in an article.

Answer: When writing an article based on reliable sources, it is important to represent each viewpoint about the subject in proportion to its presence in these reliable sources. If we do the opposite by giving undue weight to extreme minority views of fringe aspects of a topic we risk giving a distorted picture of a subject. Consider, for example, the following: An editor writes an article about the fall of the Roman Empire and makes 70% of the article about a fringe theory which claims that the empire fell because of an asteroid impact. Now, if a reader who knows nothing about the topic reads the article, they will think that this is the majority view. In this case, Wikipedia has failed its mission as an encyclopaedia and has caused a misinformation to its reader. Therefore, we must always provide due weight in order to give a verifiable impression of the subject. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. It is important to provide a balance and due weight in mainstream views to represent all points of view in reliable sources. For example, Capital punishment the article states the view of for and against of the punishment for a crime. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

---

No original research

Please read WP:OR and WP:NOT and answer the questions below

12. In your own words, why Wikipedia is not a platform to publish original research?

Answer: Verifiability is on of the central concepts of Wikipedia: every fact in every article must be confirmable by reliable sources. If an editor insert into an article material he or she has researched themselves, the content will no longer be verifiable because it does not originate in a reliable source. This also applies if the research is high-quality since, even in this case, readers cannot reliably verify any of it. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Not only need to cited by reliable sources but it also need to be independent from the subject. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

13. In your own words, please provide one example with explanation when it is appropriate to insert an original research or an opinion in an article.

Answer: Original thought (for example, in the form of an opinion) may under certain circumstances be included in an article. This is possible if the opinion is 1) not the editor's, 2) is clearly identified as such in the text and 3) can be verified through a reliable source. Consider the following example: A politician said in an interview that taxes on wealth are bad for the economy. This viewpoint can be included in an article if it is introduced by a clear statement that this is only an opinion and not a fact, e.g. "politician X said that taxes on wealth are bad for the economy" and not "taxes on wealth are bad for the economy". This should, of course, only be included if a reliable source is provided. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Y There are three known way to do it (1) as per your example - xxx stated that ...... (2) Direct quote (3) verbatim when the content is in the public domain such as Constitution of the United States. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

14. See this video and write the content in the in an article by using the video info as the source.

Answer: According to Imam Shady Alsuleiman proper Islamic clothing must be non-see-through, not colourful, and baggy, which means that Muslims are not allowed to wear jeans. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Verifiability

Please read WP:V and answer the questions below

15. If the subject has two sons and it is supported by three independent, reliable sources but in reality he has 3 sons. Could we change the content from "2" sons to "3 sons"? and why?

Answer: In this case, we cannot change the content form "2" sons to "3" sons. If the "true" information is not backed by up by reliable sources, it does not matter whether it is actually true or not. What counts on Wikipedia is verifiability, the concept that every fact in an article must be found in a reliable source. If the wrong number of sons is found in a large number of "reputable" (reliable, independent) sources, we can include this number in an article. The fact that we know from personal knowledge that the subject has 3 sons is irrelevant in this scenario. The best option might be to avoid information about the subject's sons altogether. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Y - see WP:But it's true. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Modussiccandi See Assignment 3 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, the assignment is finished and ready for your comments. Thank you and best Modussiccandi (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi well-done!. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia thanks for getting back to me so quickly! I think I'm ready to move on to the next assignment! Best Modussiccandi (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion

PART 2

We have looked at the requirements needed for a page to meet notable, policy and type of sources to merit a page in Wikipedia in Part 1 (Assignment 1, 2 & 3). In assignment 4, we look at what type of articles need to be filtered out from our system when reviewing a page. There are many criteria of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Here we discuss (1) General criteria (G1-G14), (2) Article criteria (A1-A11) and R2.

Please do the following

1. Pls set up your CSD log by installing MYCSD so I could review your CSD nomination. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
2. Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in computer; and install Earwig Copyvio Detector script. (The "copyvio" will appear on the left panel under "Tools" section on every page in Wikipedia.
3. Install CV-revdel and after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

General criteria

1. Please (G1-G14) at General and answer the following questions in your own words.

No	Criterion	Application	Comment by Cass
1	G1	G1 is for pages that consist entirely of unintelligible material ("gibberish"), such as a random string of letters or numbers. It is important to apply this in a narrow sense: G1 does not apply to material that makes even the smallest amount of sense, including hoaxes, obscenities and vandalism.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
2	G2	G2 is for test pages. A page is considered a test page if it has been created only to test-edit or otherwise try out functions of Wikipedia. Such pages should normally be kept as a user sandboxes, which is why this criterion does not apply to pages in the user namespace.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
3	G3	G3 is for vandalism and obvious hoaxes. By vandalism we mean any edit that deliberately tries to obstruct Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopaedia, for example by inserting wrong or offensive information into articles. Hoaxes, then, are deliberate attempts to misinform Wikipedia's readership by staging false information so as to appear true. One should note that G3 does not apply if these actions are done inadvertently and out of good faith.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
4	G4	G4 is for recreations of recently deleted pages. This applies if a new page substantially resembles a page that has recently been deleted from the mainspace. If the page is only partially identical or the reason for deletion of the old page no longer applies, this criterion cannot be used.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
5	G5	G5 is for pages created by banned or blocked users. The criterion only applies if they are the main author of a new page and if the edits occurred during the period of their ban. The quality of the page does not influence whether G5 is applied.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
6	G6	G6 is for technical deletion. This should be used for pages that can be removed uncontroversially for an obvious technical reason, such as empty articles blocking page moves, pages clearly created in error or orphaned templates.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
7	G7	G7 is to be used if an author requests a deletion. Here it is important that the request is made in good faith by the only substantial contributor to a page.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
8	G8	G8 is for pages that depend on another, non-existent page. Examples of this include talk pages, subpages and redirects whose main page has been deleted or does not exist. G8 does not apply to user pages or user talk pages.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
9	G9	G9 is applied to deletions made by the Wkimedia foundation. This process, known as office action, is only used in exceptional circumstances.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
10	G10	G 10 is for attack pages. This applies if a pages only function is to attack/harass a person or organisation. This also applies to biographical articles whose content in negative and poorly sourced. These descriptions also apply to page titles that attack their subjects.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
11	G11	G11 is for promotion and advertisement. This criterion is applied when a page is only promotional in its content, i. e. when it reports only in positive terms about a person, organisation, viewpoint etc. Note, also, that it may be possible to rewrite such articles in a NPOV manner (if the subject is notable).	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
12	G12	G12 is for copyright infringement. This criterion can be applied if we sport pages containing copyrighted material (e.g. images or text) without indication of public domain status, free licence or fair use. Generally speaking, one should first try to remove only the relevant content. The page does not need to be deleted if only a part of it has copyright concerns. G11 is only for cases when most of the page constitutes a copyright violation.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
13	G13	G13 is for abandoned drafts. We use this criterion when for drafts that have not been edited by a user for a long time (6 months).	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
14	G14	G14 is for unnecessary disambiguation pages. This usually applies to pages that claim to disambiguations but aren't: they fail at being valid disambiguations by linking to one or zero Wikipedia articles.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Article and R2 criteria

1. Please (A1-G11) criteria at WP:CSD#List of criteria and answer the following questions in your own words.

No	Criterion	Application	Comment by Cass
1	A1	A1 applies to articles without sufficient context to be understood. Examples of this include brief sentences like "It is a city in North America". Before applying this criterion, one should try to improve the article by adding context if possible.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
2	A2	A2 is for articles written in a language other than English that already exist on a different-language Wikipedia. This does not apply if the content of the article is not a copy from another Wikipedia. In this case, it needs to be translated.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
3	A3	A3 is for articles without content. We can use this criterion if an article has no prose content. This includes article that have prose content which does not qualify as encyclopaedic content, such as correspondence, links or empty templates. Infoboxes and poor writing do not fall under this criterion.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
4	A5	A5 is for transwikied articles. This applies to content that is already hosted in another Wikimedia project, such as primary sources already on Wikisource or dictionary entries already on Wiktionary.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
5	A7	A7 is applied to articles that do not indicate their subject's importance. This is different from notability: notability has strict criteria (GNG and SNG), while importance means that the subject is at least noteworthy. Note that A7 applies to people, animals, organisations, web content, and events. Also, it excludes educational institutions.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
6	A9	A9 is applied to articles about musical recordings that do not indicate their subject's importance. This criterion is similar to A7. It applies when there is an article about a recording which fails to say why its subject is important and whose artists do not have Wikipedia articles	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
7	A10	A10 is for articles which are duplicates of existing articles. This does not apply to pages which are splits from longer articles or disambiguations. However, A10 should be used sparingly as it is often possible to change the article into a redirect to the original topic.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
8	A11	A11 applies to article on invented subjects. It is used when it is obvious that a subject was only mad-up/invented/discovered by an editor and has no claim to significance. A11 is not for hoaxes, which are covered by G3.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
9	R2	R2 is for redirects to other namespaces. An example of this would be if a redirect that one would expect leads to an article in the mainspace actually leads to the user: namespace. The reason for this is that we would like to keep the encyclopaedic content separate from content that is not suitable for the mainspace. For example, if an article is draftified, a redirect will automatically be created. This redirect should be deleted under R2 because otherwise readers might be redirected to the draft space by accident.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

---

3. Please read WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD 11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and hist diffs and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer I: Draft:A. Bright Idea, [4]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Draft:3D Management, [5]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: Draft:BurrnationK9s, [6]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: Draft:Aagri Koli Couples, [7]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer v: Draft:Thief and Heist, [8]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Pls read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and answer the questions below.

3. When do we nominated a page for WP:G12 and when do we WP:REVDEL the COPYVIO text?

Answer: A page should be nominated for speedy deletion under G12 if there is no other content worth saving. For example, if a page consists only of one paragraph which is copied from a copyrighted source, deletion under G12 could be considered. Revision deletion (REVDEL), on the other hand, may be used to permanently delete one version of page's history. Criterion 1 of WP:CRD allows this process for blatant copyright violations. If a certain revision of a page contains a blatant copyvio, that revision might be permanently removed via REVDEL. However, the rest of the page will remain. The difference, then, between G12 and REVDEL comes down to whether the entire page is deleted or only a certain revision. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. G12 can also be applied if the big chunk / majority of the content is copyvioed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

4. What constitute copyright infringement/violation.

Answer: If we copy material from non-free (i.e. material that is not in the public domain or under a CC or GNU licence) sources into Wikipedia without the consent of the copyright holder, we commit a copyright infringement. This even applies if the text is minimally altered. To avoid this, editors should genuinely summarise information form sources in their own words. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

5. Why some of the texts found in an article are identical as per its sources and yet they are not considered copyright violation? Please provide three examples.

Answer I: From the Theodore Roosevelt article:

He bragged about his one small success: "We achieved a victory in getting up a combination to beat the Blaine nominee for temporary chairman... To do this needed a mixture of skill, boldness and energy... to get the different factions to come in... to defeat the common foe."

The text is nearly identical with that of its source (Brands 1997, p. 171) and would therefore count as close paraphrasing of a non-free source. (The book is not in the public domain because it was published in 1997 and not released by its author.) However, the material does not constitute a copyvio because it is a brief quotation and cleary marked as such. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. well-done. One of the best quotes of Roosevelt "Unless a man is master of his soul, all other kinds of mastery amount to little." Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: From the Cyrus the Great article:

In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity. And these things God did afford them ...

[The text goes on for several sentences]

The text is exactly identical with that of its source, Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews book 11, ch. 1. Although the text is presented as a quotation, it is far too long to fall under the exception for quotations. Nevertheless, it does not constitute a copyvio because the source is in the public domain. (Josephus wrote in the first century AD and is therefore considered in the public domain). Modussiccandi (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Y well-done. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

... LaLaurie's slaves were observed to be "singularly haggard and wretched;" however, in public appearances LaLaurie was seen to be generally polite to black people and solicitous of her slaves' health.

The part of text in quotation marks is a direct copy of its source (Martineau 1838, p.137). Still, it is not a copyvio because of two reasons: 1) it is a brief quotation presented as such and 2) even if it wasn't presented as a quotation, the text would still not be a copyvio because the source is in the public domain (published in 1838). Modussiccandi (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

6. Why copyright violation needs to be stamped out from Wikipedia and who determined when a violation is lawfully taking place?

Answer: One of Wikipedia's core principles is that its content is free for anyone to use and distribute. If we include material that is under copyright, we compromise Wikipedia's status as freely-redistributable encyclopaedia since copyrighted material may not be redistributed unless the copyright holder agrees to it.

When determining whether content constitutes a copyvio, the deciding factor is the copyright law of the United States. This is because the Wkimedia foundation (and with it, Wikipedia) is based in the US and therefore the law of that country governs Wikipedia's activities. Nonetheless, one should also try to abide by the copyright laws of other countries, even if it is not strictly necessary. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Y Also, copyright infringement violation entails legal implications. Wikipedia takes violation of copyvio "very seriously"

---

7. Pls read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and provide 5 successful CSD 12 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. You can use Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool to check if an article is in violation of COPYVIO.

Answer I: Draft:Paul R. Berger

Y. The article was deleted under CSD 12 - see here and it was recreated again under CoI editor. Btw, pls provide hist diff link next time - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pberger7&type=revision&diff=977750483&oldid=977217911&diffmode=source Paul R Berger hist diff here]. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Devon Abner

N. The CSD 12 nomination was declined by admin and did a REVDEL instead. As the edits was suspressed I cant see the orignal content for such I will go by the decision of the admin - see here where by the article has been moved to draft space. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: Lisseth Chavez

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: Task mining

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer v: Draft:Koo (app)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

---

8. Pls provide 5 successful CSD in any criteria except WP:G11, WP:G12 and WP:G13 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer I: Infinity - a media store, (A3)

Y Admin has moved to page to draft for the editor to work on it instead of CSD A3 - see here; but I will accept you answer as correct. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Carrom Pool Game, (G2)

Y}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: List of Subnational Country Alliances, (G2)

Y}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: Pol098/js/webRef.js, (G2 and G7)

Y}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer v: Oxford Process, (R2)

Y}. Btw, pls provide hist diff link next time - see Oxford Process R2 hist diff. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

---

9. Pls read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT. Please explain when to a new page (NPP article) can be nominated for CSD R2 and what should be considered when doing such move?

Answer: A new page can be nominated for speedy deletion under R2 if it provides a redirect from the mainspace to a different namespace. For example, if it provides a redirect from the main namespace to the User: namespace. There are several exceptions (including Category:, Help: Template:, Portal:). The reason this criterion exists is to separate the mainspace, which is visible to the public, from various behind the scenes operations of Wikipedia. One other thing that should be considered is whether the redirect is to a article that has been moved to the draft space. In that case, the redirect does not qualify for R2. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Y Note on R2 to draft space - We move articles to the draftspace to allow articles to be developed especially potential but unsourced WP:BLP article. Use R2 sparingly as some admins do not like pages to be move to draft page even WP:NPPDRAFT states the move is a safe place for editor to adding necessary sources, they would deems the if the articles are not improved or edit in 6 months, it will be G13. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

---

10. Pls read and A1-A11 and R2 at WP:CSD and and provide 5 successful "Article CSD" articles (with at least two of them are CSD A7) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY").Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i CSD A7: Rudy Thomann

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii CSD A7: Hammad Muhammad Khan

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii CSD R2: Kunal Singh (Youtuber & Cricketer)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv CSD R2: Feyzullah Efendi

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer v any criteria: Mary Racelis (R2)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Copyright violation and paid editors

Pls read WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question

11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?

Answer: In an ideal world, editors who have a COI will declare it on the user or article talk page. If that isn't the case, they can be spotted by some of the following things: They will focus on editing one specific article, likely the on the subject with which they have a COI. They often have access to self-published primary sources about the subject and will use them in their edits. They will have lots of detailed knowledge about their subject. That being said, they are also likely to violate WP:VERIFY when trying to transfer their knowledge into articles. In addition, they may also have a username which refers to their employer. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Y see more on "Notes" section. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

12. What you should do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?

Answer: In the case of an apparent COI, one should try to raise the issue at the editor's talk page and alert them to Wikipedia's policy regarding COI. If this fails, one should take the matter to the COI noticeboard and present all available evidence in the COI discussion. However, this should be done without outing the real-life identity of the editor in question. Regarding the article, we should try to make sure that it adheres to the relevant notability, verifiability and NPOV guidelines. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. We also tag the article with COI (Assignment 6). Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

13. Please read WP:PAID. What you should do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor?

Answer: If we suspect that a user is payed for his or her contribution to Wikipedia, a similar process to COI detection applies. We should report the relevant evidence either to ANI or to COI noticeboard but in any case without outing the editor's real words identity. If we only have private information available, it is possible to mail paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the info. Regarding the article, we should take extra care in ensuring that notability, verifiability and NPOV are met. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Note: COI editor needs to disclosed their COI on the article talk page and their user page. We "must" move a COI editor page from new page feed to draft space no matter how many years/edits/page created by the COI editor so the article would be first check by WP:Article for Creation (AfC) reviewer and then by New Page (NPP) reviewer/patroller. If a reviewer has both AfC and NPP reviewer right, then once the article (any article) is accepted in draft space will be automatically bypass New Page review and place in main space. Google will index the page (a few hours to a few days - Wikipedia has no control of when it will be indexed) once the article is accepted by a NPP reveiwer.

---

Modussiccandi See (part 2) Assignment 4 above. (Assignment 4 & 5) are the hardest in the program. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I have a question about task 3. Am I required to go to Special:NewPagesFeed and nominate five pages for deletion under G11? If yes, how do I do this? I have looked at some of the pages on the feed, but I don't yet know how to nominate them. Best Modussiccandi (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Go do Special:NewPagesFeed and you can nominate either from "New Page Patrol" or "Article for Creation" (click the button) for G11, G12. (note: dont tag anything other than G11 and G12 in Article for creation). To nominate for CSD, first you need to find a page that fit the criteria. Then click "TW" (Twinkle) on the main menu on the top of the page. A dropdown list will appear. Click "CSD" and choose G11 or G12. For copyvio, you need to provide the web link which the text is copy from (can be more than one web link). Let me know if you need further assistance. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk)

Cassiopeia Thanks for your help. I've successfully nominated two pages with G11 (see under task 3.) but I'm not sure I've done everything right. The nominations do not show up in my CSD log and I'm not sure the log has been created even though I've followed the procedure as per your instructions. Also, which diffs exactly should I provide? Please accept my apologies for these issues, I'm still trying to get to grips with twinkle. Best Modussiccandi (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi

1. Scripts/CSD Log - I have a look at your "common.js" - see here and it looks like you have install the scripts correctly. Btw the way do you see a "CSD log" at the top the menu of your Wikipedia page? If not then you might not install it correctly. You need to "Wikipedia:Bypass your cache" after install the scripts. If you havent then kindly do. The other possibility is that there is a lag to record your edits (CSD log). The lag would be ranging from a few hours to a few days. here - 1 is your CSD log.
2. Hist diff - Once you makes an edit, to to the history page of the article and every top of the edit would record you edit you just made and you would provide the hist diff from there. If the article you had made was deleted later, then I would not able to see the hist diff; however, when you nominate a page to be CSD, an related edit is recorded on the editor talk page - see her for example - here in editor talk page or at the editor talk page history log here - 2. There is a record in the All Public log -you also can find the article log if the page is deleted - see example here - 3. I can find the info by giving me the (1) the Article Name (such as you have done above) and (2) the hist diff from the editor talk page history log (so I would know you have nominated the page for CSD).

Let me know if you need further assistance. If the above info is not clear since I am i am multilingual but master of none languages, and have mild case of Irlen syndrome which makes reading and writing difficult since I was young which also translate to poor command of languages. My apologies. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks a lot. I believe my CSD log may indeed have a reproduction lag but I guess that's not a problem for this assignment. Thank you also for clearing up the diff requirement; I think I know what to do now and will get back to completing the assignment. Best Modussiccandi (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Sorry to contact you before finishing the assignment, but I have a small question I'd like to ask. I've been working on CSD nominations and I've been struggling to find R2 candidates. I tried filtering the feed to only see redirects, but I still have a hard time finding problematic ones. You couldn't give me any advice on how to better detect R2 candidates, could you? Best Modussiccandi (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi I am here to help, so if you have any questions just let me know even you havent finished the assignment. See additional info on R2 Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects and WP:NPPDRAFT. What you could do is find article (very important to note this) which the subject is notable (say a national elected politician) where by no sources are provided (Note if there is any external links/further reading or refs provided but without inline citation, then pls DO NOT R2 the article). You can find them on New page patrol at New Pages Feed. Here, R2 is to move articles from the new page to the draftspace. This is to allow articles to be developed especially potential but unsourced WP:BLP article. Use R2 sparingly as some admins do not like pages to be move to draft page even WP:NPPDRAFT states the move is a safe place for editor to adding necessary sources, they would deems the if the articles are not improved or edit in 6 months, it will be G13. To request for a R2 add R2 template (see -Template:Db-r2) on top of the page. Let me know if you need further help. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia This one took me a long time to complete. I'm afraid I made a couple of mistakes when tagging articles for CSD and it's been steep learning curve. Anyway, the assignment is finishes and I'd be happy to hear your feedback. Best Modussiccandi (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Dont worries about taking some time to complete, I am more concern about NPPSCHOOL participants give up the program half way, which happens a lot and that same go with WP:CVUA program (a much easy program) which I am also one of the trainers. You are doing very well actually. Btw the way your CSD log has registred all your CSD nominations (R2 is not a CSD) - see Your CSD log here. See my comments above and the "Notes" section below. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you for your kind words and the feedback. My apologies for not providing diffs after the first task; I will make sure to include them in the future. With that being said, I feel I'm ready to start the next assignment. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Notes

G11 (promo) - What constitute a G11? At times it is hard to define. Although if a article is bluntly promote or advertise about the subject then it is a G11. Sometimes, the it is a little subtle and that would be a judgement call. As a rule of thumb, if article about an entertainers (actor/singer/DJ/artist and etc) in dept of how hard they work, how motivated they are, using all the puffery/flowery languages and especially the subject does not meet notability guidelines. For a corporation, we would see they list down all they product/services, their directors/key person in the company, they mission, their client, they are the influencer in their industrial, all the words/phrased to enhance/market the company and no substantial info that is supported by independent reliable sources.

G12 (copyvio) -

Copyright violation addresses the use of original expression without permission of the holder which is a violation of laws even the credit is given to the source. For articles, the Copyright Law gives the copyright protection to the “original works of authorship fixed in in a tangible medium of expression” in the newspaper, magazine and freelance article at the moment of their creation, for the life of the creator plus 70 years after, and 95 years for corporation publication or 120 years from date of creation, whichever is shorter.

A “fact” is not considered an original work of authorship; but how the ways facts are recorded where the style of the writing, choice and/or arrangement of words are copyrightable. An infringement of copyright is committed when a person uses the “exact words /almost exact words in a consecutive manner” of the author/holder. To note, as a guideline, a few words copies from the original works and an idea of expression such as "weather the storm", 'crossing the Rubicon" "as dead as a doornail" and etc. proper nouns, document/event/treaty/person/title/ names are generally acceptable and so is a direct quote of speech. However, any longer phrases which would be expression in a number of ways are copyright protected. To use one of two short sentences on a large article generally is ok but it will considered infringement if the edit entry is consists of big percentage of the original work and yet for some (such as newspaper/press/journalism that takes their work very seriously - anything more than 4 exact consecutively words would considered copyvio). To avoid copyright infringement, one needs uses his/her own words to convey the source’s information. Paraphrasing could minimize the the copyright violation; however, "threshold" ultimately, court judgement would determined the if copyright violation has been made.

Copyvio for texts or images shared the same notion that it is not a copyvio if the verbatim texts or images are taken from free licence and Public domain sites/specific page/image. Always check the "original source" even if in WikiCommon the editor who upload the image claim taken from a PD site, we need to check the link provided and if the site indicate the image taken from another source, then we check the source. For texts, we need to check the sites if it is a PD, sometimes the disclaimer of PD is not on the page, but on the home page or "about" page or FAQ page. Secondly, for older article (no in NPP Feed), any copyvio texts found, we will revdel it as it is almost always it is not the first versions. If a small amount of verbatim texts found in NPP Feed articles, we would revdel them; but large amount of verbatim texts we will tag G12.

Lastly, here are a few examples where the German car maker Audi was sued for copyright breach.

1. Audi infringed copyright violation over Eminem’s song “Lose Yourself” in their commercial advertising. [9]

2. Audi was fined US $ 965,000 over copyright infringement for using 10 words from Brian Andreas’s story of “Angel of Mercy” - [10]

I think I just had a wake-up call, and it was disguised as a car, and it was screaming at me not to get too comfortable and fall asleep and miss my life. (Audi commercial) Some people don’t know that there are angels whose only job is to make sure you don’t get too comfortable & fall asleep & miss your life.(Brian Andreas’ print)

Spot COI / PAID COI editors are permitted to edit Wikipedia and create on the affected articles; however, it is "HIGHLY DISCOURAGE/NOT RECOMMENDED as it is very difficult for the COI editors to write the article/input info into the affected article in [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view}}.

1.Use person pronouns and possessives (I, we, my, our) 2.Multiple references to company, financial listings, staff lists, interviews, own publication, press release, blog and with clean references 3.Well written prose 'too perfect to be true' and only with single/2 edits 4.Editors have created multiple company related articles 5.Editors disclosed their COI/PAID in their userpage (not tag with COI disclose), or disclosure when they ask question in WP:Teahouse, WP:Help Desk, WP:AFCHD or receivers' talk pages.

A7/A9/A11 - Credible claim of significance - If the subject content do have such claim, then it is not a A7 even the article at the present stage of the article is not notable. Choose other method. (1) after a WP:BEFORE and found no independent reliable sources to support the notability requirements, then nominated for WP:AFD, or R2 to draft space if no sources are provided (do R2 sparingly). If it is a {[WP:BLP]] without source, then WP:BLPPROD or R2. - see Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance

Hope the above help. Note the above does not substitute the Wikipedia links and reading material I provided.

---

Filtering - Deletion policy & other alternatives

In assignment 4, we look at articles which fits in WP:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) where by the the articles are deleted within a few hours to 24 hours from the time of the nomination. In Assignment 5, we discuss the what actions should be taken for those articles do not fit under the CSD criteria but do not meet relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia.

Please read WP:PROD, WP:BLPPROD, WP:MERGE, WP:DRAFTIFY, WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:REDIR, WP:AFD and answer the following questions. (Provide links and hisdiff where they are applied.)

1. Under what circumstances do we propose deletion (PROD) a page and why do we do that?

Answer: Often, pages that violate Wikipedia's policies will be eligible for speedy deletion and can be deleted within a short period of time. Because of the strict criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), many pages will not exactly meet these criteria and be ineligible for speedy deletion. If the page in question is nevertheless clearly in breach of Wikipedia's policies, we can propose it for deletion (PRDOD). PRODDING is a good alternative for pages that do not meet CSD but are still obvious candidates for deletion. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Y We PROD a page when deletion of a page would be uncontroversial, but it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. PROD doesn't require discussion; however if someone objected to PROD it can't be used anymore (it can only be used one time only). Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

2. What should we do before we PROD a page? and what should be considered /action during a nomination?

Answer: Before we propose a page for deletion, we should consider whether it meets any of the CSD. If yes, it might be possible to delete the page much quicker than by PRODDING. We also need to check whether the page has already been PRODDED: any given page may only be PRODDED once and it immune to the process thereafter. Also, we must see if the page has been vandalised since sometimes the page can be fixed by reverting problematic edits in the page history.

During the nomination one should watch the page in question closely since PROD can be challenged by anybody including the page creator. If the nomination is challenged, one should be prepared to nominate the page for deletion and explain our rationale in a full-length deletion discussion. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

3. What is the criteria when nominated a BLPPROD? If we choose not to BLPPROD a page what are the alternatives? (give three examples with explanations)

Answer: It it possible to BLPROD a page if it is a biography of a living person and does not contain any sources at all. This process is stricter than a regular PROD and can only be stopped if sources are added. The following examples are alternatives to BLPROD:

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

a) Example: A page is an unsourced article about a politician accusing him or her of corruption.

We should not BLPROD this article because it qualifies as an attack page. Attack pages are wholly negative in their content and show now consideration for NPOV. Instead, the page should be speedily deleted under G10.

Modussiccandi I believe you read the question incorrectly. However, I will reviewed the answer for the question "When we can not BLPPROD a new page?"

Y. If there is a previous version to revert for removing the content, then do so and warning the involved editor. If the content is written by sole editor/creator, then CSD it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

b) Example: An article about an individual has been vandalised by replacing all its content with offensive, unsourced material.

We should not BLPROD this article because the problem may already be fixed if we revert to the latest, non-vandalised version. In general, one should always if vandalism is the reason for the problem and whether deletion can be prevented b simply reverting.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

c) Example: A page about a famous athlete is entirely unsourced, but reliable sources can be easily found online.

We should not BLPROD this article because it is possible to find sources and make the article comply with WP:V. A search for sources is always advisable to make sure we do not delete any content that is potentially notable.

Modussiccandi (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Y}

Pls read the question again and answer the questions

(d) Answer again: A BLP article on a top college athlete about to be drafted to a pro league has no sources.

While BLPROD is possible, draftifying is a good alternative. There will likely be sources available once the player plays in a professional league. Placing the article in draft preserves the content of the article and it can be resubmitted for the mainspace when sources have been added. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

(e) Answer again: A BLP article on a notable person from public life (e.g. broadcaster, politician etc.) without sources.

In this case, a BLPROD is possible but would likely be unsuccessful since there will likely be reliable sources available online. As alternatives to BLPROD include placing a maintenance tag in the hope that an editor comes by an adds a source, or moving the article to draft. We may, of course, also add a source ourselves. In the case of Judy Hsu, I chose to BLPROD even though tagging might have been a better option. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

(f) Answer again: An unsourced BLP article has the shape of a news-report ("John Doe fell off a bridge on the morning of 2 October 2020. Police arrived at the scene an hour after the event.").

This article would violate WP:NOTNEWS. There are several options beside BLROD: 1) CSD A7, though there might be objections because the subject is mentioned in connection with an event, 2) PROD for violating WP:NOTNEWS and 3) AfD for the same reason. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

4. In what circumstances we nominate an AFD and what step should be done prior such action.

Answer: Pages which violate Wikipedia's content policies should be considered for deletion. Most often, these articles will violate either WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS, or they will simply not be suitable for inclusion per WP:NOT. Obvious cases for deletion may be eligible for immediate deletion under one or more of the CSD. It that is not the case, one could try to PROD them. If a page is not a clear cut candidate for deletion or if it simply does not meet any CSD, the best option is to nominate it under AFD. A consensus-oriented discussion will then follow.

Y. Good. The main points are (1) it the article doesn't not meet CSD, PROD or BLP PROD. (2) Do a WP:BEFORE before nominate the article for AfD. CSD and PROD are uncontroversial deletion ; BLPPROD - tag when no sources in BLP article and AfD - a discussion is needed for deletion. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Before we nominate an AFD, it is necessary to make sure the page is actually in breach of Wikipedia's policies and to research well the details of the violation since we will have to argue the case for deletion in the following discussion. Also, it might be possible to improve the article in a way that makes it suitable of inclusion. This should always be considered before moving an AFD. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. A WP:BEFORE is needed before nominate a page for AFD. If IRS can be found then add them into the page and mark review if notability can be established. If not then nominte for ADF. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

5 How long do PROD, BLPPROD and AFD last prior it is deleted or decline?

Answer: PROD, BLPPROD and AFD ordinarily last seven full days. Though this need not always be the case. For example, if the consensus is very clear in favour of speedy delete/keep the discussion may be closed early unless it breaks off an ongoing discussion. Conversely, an AFD may be extended if it fails to attract any participants. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

6. When a page has been previously BLPROD and was provide a source; however if you still think that article should be deleted, what can you do?

Answer: If a page was unsuccessfully put forward for BLPROD, it may still be deleted in a different way. The article may still be nominated for a standard PROD and, should this fail, a AFD may also be initiated. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

7. When do we decide whether an article should be PROD or WP:BLPROD or WP:AFD?

Answer: First, we need to determine whether the article is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's polices. If yes, we must check whether it meet any of the CSD and nominate accordingly. If the article does not fit any of the narrow CSD, PRODDING is the next best option. Should the article not be an uncontroversial candidate for deletion or if PROD has been declined, the article can be nominated for AFD.Modussiccandi (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Y You missed WP:BLPROD. If an BLP article is unsourced we may use BLPPROD. If the tag is removed (after having added at least one reliable source) we can still nominate it for PROD or AfD if we believe it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies. We use AfD if CSD, PROD OR BLPPROD do not apply. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

8. What are the reasons to WP:Merge a page to another page?

Answer: There are several potential reasons for merging: 1) When two pages exist on the exact same subject, merging them will create one unified page. 2) Several pages contain overlapping bits of information on a subject. They should be merged to make the information efficiently available in one place. 3) Some pages are far too short to be stand-alone articles. It is often wise to merge them into larger, related articles. 4) Some short articles are hard to understand without a lot of context. The context can be provided by merging them into a larger one. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. For answer 1 above - (A) Normally the subject is the same but the article name is slightly (such as (1) one article use full name of a person, and the other use only first and last name (2) Same name but one added extra info such as occupation "XXX" vs "XXX (enginer); (B) Events known under several titles - same event but the articles names are slightly different names such as UFC Fight Night: Ortega vs. The Korean Zombie vs. UFC Fight Night 180. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

9. List 10 reasons we purpose WP:REDIR.

Answer: The following pages may be proposed for conversion into a redirect:

1. Subjects known under several titles (e.g. Horace, Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Horatius, etc.). One page should be the main article, the other names redirects.
2. Probable typos (e.g. Brittain for Britain, Gana for Ghana).
3. Adjectives for a noun subject (e.g. hateful for hate, political for politics).
4. Alternative spellings (Colonization for Colonisation, Labor for Labour).
5. Less specific names for a subject (Luther for Martin Luther, Obama for Barack Obama).
6. Initialisms (UN for United Nations, NBA for National Basketball Association).
7. Alternative capitalisations (pride and prejudice for Pride and Prejudice).
8. Different attested names for a subject (Great War for World War I, Second Five Year Plan for Great Leap Forward).
9. Plurals (cars for car, political parties for political party).
10. Punctuation or hyphenation issues (German Austrian War for German-Austrian War, Yes. No. for Yes? No?).

Modussiccandi (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

10. When article can be moved to draft space?

Answer: Some articles, while not being suitable for the mainspace because of content policy issues, will nonetheless be on notable subjects. In that case, moving these articles to the draftspace can be a good option. When articles are converted to drafts, editors have time to improve them and/or add reliable sources until the draft is ready for the mainspace. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Y Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

11. Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanation of your nomination.

Answer 1: Bibliography of Tirana, nominated with the following rationale:

Though the article claims to be a list, it constitutes a violation of WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY. Since most entries in the article contain external links, it also violates WP:LINKFARM, which states that Wikipedia must not host link repositories. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Y, Understand why you nominated - result was merge to Tirana. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Becky Prim, nominated with the following rationale:

I PRODDED the article because it is a clear WP:GNG fail. The one source provided is a self-published YouTube video. A Google search reveals lots of coverage on the subject, but none in reliable sources. It also does not meet WP:NFO. The creator has challenged a PROD but I am yet to see any evidence to demonstrate that this film merits inclusion. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: SCP - Secret Laboratory, nominated with the following rationale:

The article does not have any sources. I've done a google check, and there is some coverage of the game on YouTube and Steam. Nothing by way of reliable, independent sources and therefore WP:GNG fail. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Y Result is no consensus for sources are added but, to me it is a weak keep for I would refer to see more IRS,5-7 instead of 3. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: Brian Hull (impressionist), nominated with the following rationale:

I was about to move the article to draft but I believe it should be deleted instead. The one source provided is the subject YouTube channel. Generally, the subject appears to be simply a YouTuber with a large number of subscribers. A Google search turns up lots of self-published sources but not much by way of reliable sources. This is why I think the article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer 5: Seidai Myōjin, nominated with the following rationale:

The source provided a non-reliable website. During my WP:BEFORE, I found a couple of additional sources on the subject: this from Reuters and this from Discover Kyoto. While these are reliable sources, Seidai Myōjin is only mentioned in passing. In general, it appears that he is only ever mentioned in conjunction with the shrine mentioned in the sources. These mentions are not WP:SIGCOV. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Y Result is redirect. It is always hard when it comes to sources of the subject could come from local languagues for there might be some onlne or print sources that we would not know of. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

12. Participate in 5 WP:AFD where by you are the first voter of the discussion. Please provide you reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.

Answer 1: Barbara De Fina, providing the following rationale for keep:

There is some coverage of her available but none of it reliable, as far as I can tell, which makes her a WP:GNG fail. Regarding WP:PRODUCER, the only criterion she might meet is 3. The question is whether her role on notable films like Goodfellas was big enough to merit the term "co-creator". For Goodfellas the term does not seem warranted since Irwin Winkler is credited in most sources as the producer. But for some other films (e.g. Casino and The Age of Innocence) she acted as the lead producer. In view of this, I think she meets WP:PRODUCER. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Terry N Phipps, providing the following rationale for delete:

I could not find any reliable sources about the subject. The website which gave him the award is of doubtful notability and has been offline for two years. It seems to have been more of a blog than a source of critical journalism. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POET since the award can hardly be construed as "significant critical attention". Modussiccandi (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: Black Coyote, providing the following rationale for redirect:

I agree with the nominator that the subject fails WP:BASIC. The coverage in the sources provided (at least those I could open) is not substantial and the subject is only mentioned in passing. Overall, it looks like the subject clearly falls within WP:SINGLEEVENT. From the source provided by the nom it emerges the subject did play a role in starting the Wounded Knee Massacre. There should not be a stand-alone article on him but I would think that a redirect to Wounded Knee Massacre is in order. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Y even thought the result was a delete, but I do understand why you vote for a redirect for the subject did play a role in Wounded Knee Massacre, a very significant event of American history. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: Johannes of Habsburg-Lorraine, providing the following rationale for delete:

The article is a translation from a French Wikipedia page but all sources provided are non-reliable. I have not found any significant coverage in reliable ones myself. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps it was thought that the subject is notable because he is a descendant of the last emperor of Austria. That, however, is irrelevant for determining the notability of the subject per WP:BIOFAMILY. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer 5: The 60's Generation, providing the following rationale for delete:

The article does not provide any sources. I haven't found any significant coverage in reliable sources either. I don't see a reason why the subject should be considered notable per WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

13. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons.

Answer 1: Otto Voge, nominated because:

No inline citations are provided. The one external link is to a primary source and does nothing to show the subject meets WP:GNG. The subject also does not meet WP:POLITICIAN since his office was not national/international/state level and he was not a "major political figure". Significance is established, so no A7. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Becky Prim, nominated because:

The article is unsourced. A Google search does not reveal any reliable sources on the subject. Apart from the WP:GNG fail, the subject fails all points of WP:NFO. The creator of the film appears not to be notable either. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

14. Nominate 2 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons.

Answer 1: Rolf Sanchez, nominated because:

The article is on a living person and does not have any sources, inline or otherwise. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Judy Hsu, nominated because:

The article is on a living person and does not have any sources, inline or otherwise. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. This is the case whether to BLPPROD or AfD or R2 to draft space. I have a quick check on the web and found few passing mentioned of the subject. Admin chose to R2 to draft space instead. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

15.Nominate 2 article for WP:NPPDRAFT and state your reasons.

Answer 1: Hampton F.C. (founded 1996), moved to draft because:

The subject is potentially notable and several teams in its league have well-sourced articles. Since the article did not have a single inline citation, I chose to move it to the draftspace. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Esri UK, moved to draft because:

The article has no content except for an infobox. It also has no sources. However, the company has a notable product, which is why I'm moving it to the draftspace for improvement. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Modussiccandi See Assignment 5 above. Do take a look at the discussion at least for the past two weeks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current and past articles for deletion (AfD) discussions to see how editors discussion their decisions to keep/delete/redirect based on guidelines. The rest of the assignment will be must easier after this once except the final exam. Let me know if you need any help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I have finished the assignment. This one was interesting and I definitely learnt a lot while working on it! I'd be happy to hear your feedback. Best Modussiccandi (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Good day. See below

Q3 - Pls read the question again and re-answer the question from (d), (e) and (f)

Q11 and Q12- I will wait until the 7-day PROD / AfD period ended to review them

Q12 -(Answer 12-1) - Subject notability is the center of any AfD discussion. SNG does not supersede GNG; however it does come into play to keep an article if the subject passes SNG. Do a WP:BEFORE (a must when AfD) and if you can find IRS (independent, reliable sources) of the subject, then do add them into the article and in AfD or mentioned in the AfD discussion -see here for example here in AfD and here in the article. By the way THIS is your AfD log. Do bookmark it on your computer.

While waiting for the outcome of PROD and AfD, I will post Assignment 6 below since the assignment is not a prerequisite of the Assignment 5. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, thank you very much for reviewing my assignment. Yes, I think I misread parts of Q3. Would you be able to clarify what exactly is meant by the question so that I can make sure to answer correctly? Thank you and best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Q3 second part -"If we choose not to BLPPROD a page what are the alternatives? (give three examples with explanations)" - Besides BLPPROD for an unsourced BLP article, what other alternatives (tag/nominate) we would use if we deem the article should be deleted? (“There's more than one way to skin a cat”). I hope the above would clarify the question. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thanks for the help. I have re-done Q3; please feel free to have a look at it again. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Tagging

In this assignment we look at tagging pages for problems. There any many tags available in Wikipedia and we will look at some of them here.

• Please enable Wikipedia:HotCat in your "Wikipedia references" - see How to enable/disable HotCat. The tool lists and proposes existing categories for auto-completion.
• Pls download StubSorter user script. The script is for adding/removing stub tags.
• Pls download Rater user script. The scripts provides a dialog interface to add, remove, or modify WikiProject banners, including class and importance assessment. Accessible from either the page itself or its talk page. after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
• Please enable User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper gadget for editing, adding, and importing short descriptions.

Tagging in the article

Please read WP:TAGGING and answer the questions below. Please provide explanation in your own words and provide hist diff when applicable.

1. Why do we place tags on the article?

Answer: When an article has one or several problems that need fixing, a tag can be placed on them to alert other editors to these issues. Even though it would be better to fix the problems ourselves, we may not have the time or be able to address them; a tag will encourage other editors to improve the article when they happen to come across it. Tags can also sere as a warning that the content may not yet be up to an encyclopaedaic standard. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. It is a good practice if we have time and we know how to fix the issue, it would be best to do so instead of tagging. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

2. What does "drive by tagging" mean?

Answer: Sometimes editors tag articles for problems which are not immediately obvious and do not explain their action on the talk page. This practice is referred to as "drive by tagging" and is seen as unhelpful. While it is not necessary to be a significant contributor to the article, editors should make sure to explain themselves in edit summaries and talk pages. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

3. List down 8 common tagging should be avoided in an article?

Answer:

1. Placing too many tags. One should not place more than 2 tags to avoid confusion.
2. An article should not have a maintenance tag if it is a blatant violation of policies. In this case, the article should be nominated for deletion.
3. Placing redundant tags: if one uses multiple tags, they should be on different issues.
4. Placing vague tags. When tagging, one should make sure to indicate what exactly the problem is.
5. Unhelpful tags: for example a copy edit tag on an article containing only one sentences. The improvements suggested by tags should be helpful and realistic.
6. Using the wrong tag. For example, using the "unreferenced" tag when there are sources.
7. Removing an NPOV tag without discussion. These tags should always be discussed and only removed after a consensus is reached.
8. Tagging to make a point about an article.

Modussiccandi (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Y For NPOV - if there is no NPOV discussion in the article talk page and if we could fix the content to be NPOV then once it is done, the editor can remove the tag - example such as removing WP:PUFF words. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

4. When it is appropriate to remove the tags?

Answer: It is appropriate to remove tags only if the problem raised by the tag is resolved. It is not possible to remove a tag if one has a conflict of interest: one should wait for uninvolved editors to make a decision about the tag. In any case, editors should always leave an informative edit summary when they choose to remove a tag. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

5. Tag 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed where appropriate tags are needed and provide associate personal message to creator using page curator tool.

(pls provide links)

i. Answer:N/A

ii. Answer:N/A

iii. Answer:N/A

iv. Answer:N/A

v. Answer:N/A

vi. Answer:N/A

vii. Answer:N/A

viii. Answer:N/A

ix. Answer:N/A

x. Answer:N/A

6. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and use StubSorter user script. Tag 10 sub class article correctly from Special:Newpagesfeed. (pls provide links)

i. Answer: Omar Jagaa

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Frac des Pays de la Loire

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: México & Amigos

Y. It has since redirect to Julio Iglesias discography - see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Bharaas

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Taj West End Bangalore

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Artus Moser

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: Galway Business School

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

viii.Answer: Froissart bound

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answer: Oluwatomi Somefun

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: Ts'emi'e

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Categorization

7. Please read Wikipedia:Categorization and assign 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed with one or more useful categories. You can check similar articles for potentially relevant categories. (pls provide links)

i. Answer: Pep Talk Radio

Page has since been deleted. Cant view. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Apam Putra (state constituency)

Y. Do provide article name and hist diff next time and same with all for Q7. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: The Lego Ninjago Movie (theme)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Anti-Kickback Statute

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Lexicon-grammar

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Ghana Industrial Holding Corporation

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: List of Lok Sabha Members from Himachal Pradesh

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

viii.Answer: Soul Of The West

ix. Answer: The Hill of James Magee

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: Killing of Emine Bulut

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Sorting

8. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:Content assessment and tag 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed with appropriate WikiProject and class types on the articles' talk pages. Please use Rater user script. (pls provide links)

i. Answer: City Wall of Taizhou

Y. Pls provide the hist diff next time and same with rest of Q8. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Ilex umbellulata

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Razaq Lawal

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Fratelli tutti

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Kennedy brothers uprising

Y. Also add military history and leave the parameter as they are as there are particular hard to judge and WikiProject on Military history editor will appropriate the parameters' class and its importance. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Änglamark

Y it is a song and not a film - see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: Wen (surname 闻)

viii.Answer: SpringHill Entertainment

It has since been delete. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answer: Turkish Maarif Foundation

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: Wessex Society of Newfoundland and Labrador

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: If the article is a biographic and one of the parameters apply then do add them in (ex - politician, sport person and etc). Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Short description

9. short description suitable to allow a reader to identify which search result is most likely to suit their needs. All mainspace pages should have a description of what they are preferably limit to about 40 characters, but function is important. Please read Wikipedia:Short description and Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions and provide 10 short descriptions in 10 different articles from Special:Newpagesfeed. Please enable User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper prior making the edit. (pls provide links)

i. Answer: Syrian Arabic

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: SC-Stadion

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Kennedy brothers uprising

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: The Hill of James Magee

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Reba Place Fellowship

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Police/Worlds: Studies in security, crime and governance

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: Groupe Figaro

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

viii. Answer: Rifat Sharif murder

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answer: Lazar Vučković

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: Thomas Warwick

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Modussiccandi see Assignment 6 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have a small question. I've started working on Q5. The question says that I should send a message to the page creator with the curation tool. I'm not sure if I have access to that tool. Would it be okay to send the messages manually? Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Since you dont have the NPP reviewer user right at the moment, you dont need to answer Q5 (not applicable/NA). Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I have finished the above assignment. I'd be happy to hear your feedback. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi, Hi Pls see the review above. Do provide article name and "hist diff" next time for I need to know you are the one who edited and I dont need to find them in the hist log. Good work here and stay safe. Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Communication and editor interactions

Wikipedia project is a collaboration of many editors, some are experienced and some are new to the Project ad Wikipedia values all constructive editors' contributions alike. Communication in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged especially to new editors who are not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies for most new editors find it is a steep learning curve during the first few months of editing articles or creating articles in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and welcome template and answer the following questions. Do provide links and hist diff where appropriate.

Communication

1. How do we deal with a bad faith registered user and how do we deal with a bad faith IP editor?

Answer: When facing a bad faith user, i. e. one who repeatedly adds disruptive edits or outright vandalism, one should leave a warning message on the user's talk page. If this does not help, one should consider reporting the user to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. In the case of an IP address with such behaviour, it may not be certain whether is always used by the same person. Although it is advisable to place warning templates on their talk page, we can also try finding out more about the location and identity of the IP, and place a tag with this information on their tab page. Eventually, IP can also be reported to the administrators. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. We treat IP or registered user the same way. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

2. What can we do to welcome and help the newcomers.? (List down 10 different ways/scenario)

i. Answer: Place a welcome template on their talk page.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Help them correct good faith mistakes in a friendly way.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Point them to resources for new editors like H:GS.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Connect with them via shared topics. For example: if you and the new editor work on the same article, place a message on their talk page informing them about things to improve in that article.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Not to use jargon in messages to them and explain important bits of Wikipedia language like "notability", "COI", "AfD" etc.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Offer to adopt them.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: Check their edit history and see if they had problems with facet of the project. Then show them specifically how to use this facet, like File Upload Wizard, Article Wizard or WikiProjects.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

viii. Answer: If their good faith articles get deleted, explain to them why it was deleted and how they might be able to create something that will not get deleted.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answer: Explain what a talk page is. This can be helpful - when I started I didn't know that this was the place to communicate with other editors.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: Follow up. It would be a good idea to see how they do a couple of days/weeks after your message and perhaps give them a few more tips about their editing.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

3. In you own words, provide 10 ways to avoid biting the newcomers.

i. Answer: Tell them that Wikipedia rarely erases content. When they are frustrated because their edits are reverted or their articles deleted, it may help to know that edits can be restored and articles undeleted. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Avoiding lots of jargon. One should approach new editors with generic language and not bombard them with jargon they may not have heard before. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Explain our actions precisely. When we revert their edits or warn them, we should communicate clearly via edit summaries and talk pages. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Not deleting very new articles. If an article by a new user is not a blatant violation of the policies, we should try to improve, draftily or userfy before moving to delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: Be kind and assume good faith. New users will not always know what they're doing, it is best to approach them kindly and in good faith. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

vi. Answer: Don't use negative language. When we have to criticise or warn a new user, it is important that we use moderate language in order not to offend them. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

vii. Answer: Listen to what they have to say. They may not make disruptive edits out of bad faith, asking them what they're reasons for editing are we can better help them to become constructive contributors. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

viii. Answer: Place a welcome tag on their talk page. This will help them familiarise themselves with the policies and guidelines of the project. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ix. Answer: Not to use deletion template messages. They may be confusing to new users and it is better to write a personal message. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. It depends on the situation/article content for if an article is nominated for AfD/CSD then a AfD/CSD template should be placed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

x. Answer: Point out ways to improve. If they repeatedly make the same errors, we should help them improve by pointing out the relevant pages on the talk page. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

4. Place 5 different welcome templates on 5 different newcomers. (Pls provide user talk page links)

i. Answer: User talk:Maviekran-hatasi-turkce-xp.JPGPM, Standard Welcome

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: User talk:Beisubarru, Welcome Graphical

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: User talk:Railway Christina, Welcome Retro

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: User talk:Anthonychamblee, Welcome Short

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: User talk:Maunamele, Welcome Screen

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

5. List 5 uncivil behaviors and explain how you would duel with them.

i. Answer: Lying. If an editor lies in an editing dispute or any other discussion, I would try to remain calm and demonstrate the truth with hist diffs.

Y. Editor history log/ talk page would reveal some of the editor's behavior. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: Profanity or name calling. If an editor resorts to foul language in a discussion, I would ask them to stop using this kind of language and remain civil in my own reply to them.

Y. See No WP:Personal Attack guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: Unfounded accusations. If an editor were to accuse me of something without any factual basis, I would first make sure that there isn't a misunderstanding and I'd apologise if I did something wrong. In case the editor's accusation is baseless, I would refute the accusation with hist diffs.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: Talk page harassment. If an editor keeps posting offensive messages on a user talk page, one should first ask them to stop with a civil message on their own talk page. If this does not help, the user can be reported to WP:ANI.

Y

v. Answer: Taunting and obvious provocations. If a user makes comments that are clearly intended to provoke an uncivil reaction, I would try not to answer immediately. With some distance, one should post a civil message onto their talk page and ask them not to repeat their actions. Otherwise, it may be best to report them to WP:ANI.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A token of appreciation

We reward Wikipedia editors for their hard work and due diligence by awarding them barnstars as a token of appreciation, encouragement and make its recipient feel good of their contributions. The choice of banstar given should be fair and appropriate, which will help prevent over-use. There are many different type of banstars, kindly read Wikipedia:Barnstars, Wikipedia:Personal user awards

5. Give 5 different banstars to 5 different editor and do provide relevant text as to why you are awarding them. (Pls provide links)

i. Answer:The University Barnstar

With the following text: Thank you very much for helping to get the articles of two great scholars, R. A. B. Mynors and Denys Page, to GA status. Your review of Mynors really helped me get the hang of the GA criteria. Hoping to work with you again soon.

Modussiccandi (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ii. Answer: The Literary Barnstar

With the following text: I am awarding you this barnstar for your help in getting Epodes (Horace) to GA status. Given the scarcity of good coverage on classical literature, your contribution goes a long way! Hoping to work with you again.

Modussiccandi (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

iii. Answer: The Original Barnstar

With the following text: I am awarding you this barnstar as a recognition for you effort of getting Odyssey to GA status. Our coverage of classical literature is in dire need of improvement, so thank you for bringing the article up to scratch. Keep up the good work!

Modussiccandi (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

iv. Answer: The Military Barnstar

With the following text: For your work on the Battle of Lake Trasimene article. Thank you for helping to improve the coverage of Ancient Rome.

Modussiccandi (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

v. Answer: The COVID-19 Barnstar

With the following text: I am awarding you this barnstar for your contributions to the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with disabilities article. Nice work on an interesting topic, especially seeing that you are still new to Wikipedia.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Modussiccandi See assingment 7 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I have completed the assignment above. Please feel free to add your comments if you like. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Tools and help

#	Tools	For / Functions
1	Twinkle	Wikipedia gadget to assist common maintenance tasks
2	Hotcat	Wikipedia gadget to propose existing categories for auto-completion
3	Resource Request	Wikipedia help desk to locate content of printed books or form paywall sites
4	Google translate	Translation
5	Citation Tool for Google Books	Citation tool for Google books
6	Reverse Image Search	Reverse image serach
7	User:Modussiccandi/CSD log	Your CSD log
8	This is your AfD log	Your Article for Deletion log
9	Earwig's Copyvio Detector via web Earwig Copyvio Detector script	Copyvio detector tool
10	CV-revdel	Delete copyrighted content request
11	StubSorter user script.	Adding/removing stub tags
12	Rater user script	Adding, removing, or modifying WikiProject banners, including class and importance assessment
13	StubSorter user script	Adding stub class sorter
14	Shortdesc helper script Wikipedia gadget - Adding short description in the article
15	Special:NewPagesFeed	Search new articles in Wikipedia
16	Copyvio Check	Displays the % of copyvio in a separate section of the info menu of the NPP toolset.
17	Superlinks	Quickly view pages and information related to the page they are currently viewing or editing without the need to navigate away form current page
18	NPP flowchart	NPP flowchart

---

Modussiccandi Assignment 7. Now exericse here - just a list of tools for NPP reveiwer. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Putting all together -reviewing articles

• Please install COPYVIO check script. This is a script which displays the % of copyvio in a separate section of the info menu of the NPP toolset. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

• Please install Superlinks script. This script allows users to quickly view pages and information related to the page they are currently viewing or editing without the need to navigate away from the page or open large numbers of new tabs. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

• Bookmark NPP flowchart in your devices.

• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

Reviewing articles

Please refer to NPP flowchart and read all the reading material provide from Assignment and tools 1-8 and answer the questions below. Please pick 10 articles from the new pages or draft pages from Special:NewPagesFeed and follow the NPP flowchart and provide the appropriate answer below (pls place N/A if not applicable). Pick articles that have 3-4 sources for the exercises below.

0. Example

1. Article (pls provide link) = Assignment 2 - Sources Q 8 and 9 Q 8 - David Howell Petraeus
2. Article titles (need to change if so state the change) = OK
3. Images copyright = US free image
4. NPOV (if not then state why) =yes
5. COI / PAID (if yes then provide explanation)= no indication
6. COPYVIO (if yes then provide source (URL) = not
7. Article Class = Stub class
8. Short Description = U.S. Army general
9. Categories (3-5) = 1952 births  ; Living people ; Commandants of the United States Army Command
10. Review (Review/AfD/PROD/BLPPROD/R2) = Reviewed
11. Reason (for x) = meet GNG and Military history/Notability guide#2
12. Sources (see below)

Pls indicate "y" for yes or "n" for no after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n".

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/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	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	CNN is independent of the government.	CNN is generally considered reliable.	CNN shows him taking the oath.	✔ Yes
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893	Independent of the government	Is very opinionated	Addresses the topic in detail	✘ No
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012	The subject isn't connected to the maker of the family tree.	Can't be verified.	? Not sure	✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005	Not connected to the subject.	The source is considered reliable.	Talks about the subject in detail.	✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html	The subject is talking to the author.	It comes from a reputable news source.	He is the subject of the interview.	✘ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html	The author is not directly connected with the subject.	The source is a news source that has a reputation of being reliable.	The article talks about him 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}}.

---

1.

1. Article = Emeterio Gómez, (as of this version)
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = yes, after removing slight issues with WP:PUFF
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Start class
8. Short Descr = Venezuelan economist
9. Categories = Simón Bolívar University (Venezuela) faculty, 1942 births, Venezuelan economists, Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain, 2020 deaths
10. Review = Reviewed
11. Reason (for reviewed) = Although the subject is covered in several reliable and independent sources, I believe that he could be in danger of being WP:E1. The coverage is all about his death from COVID-19. Still, I believe he passes GNG because the sources also talk about his accomplishments as an economist. If the source only stated that he died from COVID-19, I would have considered starting an AfD. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.eluniversal.com/venezuela/68111/fallecio-en-espana-el-economista-emeterio-gomez	There are social media posts from relatives included in the article, but if one ignores these, the content of the article is independent.	The source is a major newspaper from Venezuela.	The source is about the subject.	✔ Yes
https://talcualdigital.com/economista-emeterio-gomez-fallecion-en-espana-por-coronavirus/	Same as above.	? The newspaper is considered flawed on political matters, so I'm not sure whether they are reliable on biographies.	Subject is the focus of the source.	? Unknown
https://www.elnacional.com/mundo/murio-el-economista-emeterio-gomez-en-espana/	Same as above.	The source is a major newspaper from Venezuela.	Subject is the focus of the source.	✔ Yes
https://www.ntn24.com/america-latina/venezuela/trabajadores-del-metro-de-caracas-salieron-las-calles-exigir-mejoras	Same as above.	The source is a mainstream Colombian broadcaster	Subject is the focus of the source.	✔ 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}}.

Y. I have the same notion as your comment. Can go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see how other editors comment on the source reliablity. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

---

2.

1. Article = Poju Oyemade, (as of this version)
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Stub Class
8. Short Descr = Nigerian televangelist
9. Categories = Living people, Nigerian broadcasters, 1968 births
10. Review = Nominate for AfD (this is the discussion)
11. Reason (for AfD) = Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://punchng.com/how-my-wife-was-arrested-by-sars-operatives-poju-oyemade/?amp=1	The source is written from the subject's perspective.	? The source is a major newspaper from Nigeria but there are doubt about its reliability.	The source is about the subject.	✘ No
https://www.thecable.ng/poju-oyemade-i-wrote-on-closure-of-churches-before-oyedepo-spoke/amp	The article is independent of the subject.	The website is not reliable.	The source is about the subject.	✘ No
http://saharareporters.com/2019/07/01/fatoyinbo-rape-scandal-i-am-heartbroken-says-covenant-church-pastor-poju-oyemade	The article appears to be an copy of a statement by the subject.	The website is a good news agency based in New York City.	The source is about the subject.	✘ No
https://www.legit.ng/amp/1137333-poju-oyemade-biography.html	Reads like an advert for the subject.	? The website is well-known, yet unprofessionally presented news website from Nigeria.	Source is a biography of the subject.	✘ 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}}.

Y. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

---

3.

1. Article = Main Frontal Thrust, (as of this version)
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = in the public domain
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Stub class
8. Short Descr = Geological fault in the Himalayas (somehow this doesn't show with the short desc tool)
9. Categories = Geography of Asia, Thrust Faults, Himalayas
10. Review = reviewed
11. Reason (for reviewed) = No problems with sourcing, coverage in multiple good sources. Passes WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/1999TC900026	Written in a distanced and independent way.	Published in a peer-reviewed journal.	Subject is the topic.	✔ Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256695341_Holocene_shortening_across_the_Main_Frontal_Thrust_zone_in_the_eastern_Himalaya	Again, the subject is covered in a scientific and balanced manner.	Published in a peer-reviewed journal.	Subject is the topic.	✔ Yes
https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/specpubgsl/483/1/423.full.pdf	Coverage is independent.	Published with a scientific society.	The subject features prominently.	✔ Yes
				? Unknown
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}}.

Y. The short desc you added did show - see [here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

---

4.

1. Article = Jean-Pierre Barou (as of this version)
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = editor's own work
4. NPOV = yes, after small changes.
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Stub class
8. Short Descr = French publisher
9. Categories = Year of birth missing, French philosophers, French publishers,
10. Review = nominated for AfD (please see the discussion)
11. Reason (for AfD) = The article's sources do not constitute significant coverage. The subject seems important in the world of publishing but that does not make him notable. It is possible to consider him notable under WP:AUTHOR for participating in the founding of Libération (newspaper, 1941–1964) but there is no independent establishment of his role in its founding. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.liberation.fr/tribune/2008/05/12/requiem-pour-sartre_71467	Written by the subject, for the subject's newspaper.	The newspaper is fairly significant in France and appears to be considered reliable.	The article is about Jean-Paul Sartre.	✘ No
https://digiday.com/media/after-22-years-of-losses-french-left-wing-daily-liberations-pivots-officially-to-non-profit-status/	The source is independent from the subject.	The news website appears to be reliable as a provider of news.	The article is about the newspaper, no coverage of the subject.	✘ No
https://www.worldcat.org/title/powerknowledge-selected-interviews-and-other-writings-1972-1977/oclc/6554112	The content summary was likely co-authored by the subject.	The site is reliable as a catalogue.	The source is a WorldCat entry about one of his books. No info about him.	✘ No
				? Unknown
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}}.

Y Journalists, and publication houses, University presidents, Scientists, academics are particular difficult to find IRS however at times, the AfD would closed as week keep if RS but not IS could be found. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

---

5.

1. Article = Ann Kocsis, (as of this version)
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Start class
8. Short Descr = American still-life painter
9. Categories = Dead people, Still life painters, Artists from New York City
10. Review = Reviewed
11. Reason (for Reviewed) = Meets WP:GNG with several solid sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://nmwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/guide_to_the_ann_kocsis_papers.pdf	The museum is independent of the subject.	Published by a reputable museum.	Biographical section covers her in depth.	✔ Yes
https://search.proquest.com/docview/102775175?accountid=14696	Article is by a national newspaper.	New York Times article	Brief, but substantial coverage.	✔ Yes
https://search.proquest.com/docview/105516657?accountid=14696	Same as above.	Same as above.	Subject is covered in some depth on the right-hand side.	✔ Yes
				? Unknown
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}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

---

6.

1. Article = Del otro lado del puente (1980 film), (as of this version)
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Start class
8. Short Descr = 1980 film by Gonzalo Martínez Ortega
9. Categories = several, including: 1980 films, Mexican musical drama films, Films directed by Gonzalo Martínez Ortega
10. Review = Reviewed
11. Reason (for Reviewed) = The subject fails GNG because there is not enough significant coverage of the film. It is still notable under WP:NFO since it starred in the main role the notable actor Juan Gabriel and was a major part of his early career. I realise this is a borderline case but I believe this would survive the deletion process due to the (brief) mentions in reliable sources and the involvement of the aforementioned actor. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XLxBcHacjkAC&pg=PA24&dq=Del+otro+lado+del+puente+1980&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Del%20otro%20lado%20del%20puente%201980&f=false	No connection between press and subject.	Book is published by a university press.	Succinct but informative mention.	✔ Yes
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g2lZAAAAMAAJ&dq=lado+puente+1978&q=lado+puente+1978&redir_esc=y	No connection between institution and subject.	The source is printed by an institute for cinematography.	Mention in passing.	✘ No
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H8kMAAAAYAAJ&dq=otro+lado+puente&q=otro+lado+puente&redir_esc=y	Coverage is not connected with the subject.	Published by a university press.	Mention in passing.	✘ No
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=frguAAAAYAAJ&q=Del+otro+lado+del+puente+1978&dq=Del+otro+lado+del+puente+1978&redir_esc=y	Coverage is not connected with the subject.	Published history of Mexican cinema.	Mentioned only in passing.	✘ 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}}.

Y Agree that it would most likely to survive AfD and believe there would be some print source in local language as well. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

---

7.

1. Article = 2020 Bingöl earthquake, (as of this version)
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = published under cc licence
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Stub class
8. Short Descr = Earthquake in Turkey
9. Categories = Several, including: 2020 disasters in Asia, 2020s disasters in Turkey, 2020 in Turkey
10. Review = Reviewed
11. Reason (for Reviewed) = Meets GNG with coverage is several reliable and independent sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20200616142606/http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/scripts/lst5.asp	Source is independent.	The source was published by an Earthquake research institute.	The source is a list of earthquake incidents without much detail.	✘ No
http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/2/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Kaynarpinar_Karliova_Bingol_Depremi_V5.pdf	Independent report.	Published by an earthquake monitoring centre.	Detailed report of the earthquake.	✔ Yes
https://www.yenicaggazetesi.com.tr/bingolde-5-9-siddetinde-deprem-284191h.htm	Coverage is independent.	The newspaper has a political bias but I'm willing to trust them on non-political matters.	The article is a news report about the earthquake.	✔ Yes
https://tr.euronews.com/2020/06/15/bingol-de-meydana-gelen-depremde-bir-guvenlik-gorevlisi-hayatini-kaybetti	Coverage is independent.	Website is a European news provider with a solid reputation.	Detailed report.	✔ 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}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

---

8.

1. Article = Jim Roskind, (as of this version)
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = Yes
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = Too short to have copyright issues.
7. Article Class = Stub class.
8. Short Descr = American software engineer
9. Categories = American computer programmers, American software engineers, Living people (year of birth missing)
10. Review = PROD
11. Reason (for PROD) = Has sources so no BLPROD. The sources are all non-independent, self-published. I tried googling the subject and he does seem a clear GNG fail and WP:BASIC is not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNHkx_VvKWyWg6Lr8SZ-saqsQx7rFV-ev2jRFUoVD34/edit	Published by the subject.	Self-published google doc.	no coverage by the subject.	✘ No
https://www.mitcnc.org/jim-roskind/	Potentially self-published.	? Published by MIT but reliability seems in doubt.	Almost no info.	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jim-roskind-19520/	Self-published.	Social media website.	Subject is covered in some depth.	✘ No
				? Unknown
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}}.

Y Pulbished by MIT is different from publised by MITCNC. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

---

9.

1. Article = Xeno Crisis, (as of version)
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = Fair Use
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = None
6. COPYVIO = None
7. Article Class = Start class
8. Short Descr = 2019 indie video game
9. Categories = Several, including: 2019 video games, Video games developed in the United Kingdom, Kickstarter-funded video games
10. Review = Reviewed.
11. Reason (for Reviewed) = There are some non-reliable sources in the article but the two reliable reviews are enough to make it pass WP:GNG Modussiccandi (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1676714319/xeno-crisis-a-new-game-for-the-sega-genesis-mega-d/description	The content is authored by the creators of the game.	Kickstarter is a website intended to advertise the product to potential investors.	The subject is central to the source.	✘ No
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1676714319/xeno-crisis-a-new-game-for-the-sega-genesis-mega-d/posts/2089546	The content is authored by the creators of the game.	Kickstarter is a website intended to advertise the product to potential investors.	The subject is central to the source.	✘ No
https://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/nintendo-switch/xeno_crisis	Independent review.	Site is affiliated with Gamer Network, a reliable gaming news provider.	Review of the subject.	✔ Yes
https://wireframe.raspberrypi.org/articles/xeno-crisis-review-a-xeno-wha	Independent review.	The source seems not to be a very notable provider of gaming news but it seems to go through an editorial process and is presented professionally. I'm willing to say it's reliable.	Review of the subject.	✔ 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}}.

Y. In games article, I would like to see more IRS. In general, depending on reviewers, SIGCOV would be from 3-5 or 5-7 sources. I usually would take 3-5 if I know the source could be found especially in print or local language, and 5-7 if the subject's notability in the borderline status. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

---

10.

1. Article = White Ravens, (as of this version)
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = none
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = There is a copyvio issue but it's the result of a split; so all is okay.
7. Article Class = Start class
8. Short Descr = Youth literature catalogue
9. Categories = Several, including: Libraries in Munich, Youth in Germany, Education in Munich
10. Review = Reviewed
11. Reason (for Reviewed) = As it was, the subject seemed not notable. There was already one good source, so I went and [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Ravens&diff=984922680&oldid=984921276 added] another one. The subject is now shown to meet GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://www.childrenslibrary.org/servlet/WhiteRavens	Published by parent company.	Again, content by the company.	Subject is well covered.	✘ No
https://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/page/10405847	Source is an Australian books website.	Source is reliable for publishing information.	Subject is covered in some depth.	✔ Yes
https://whiteravens.ijb.de/list	Published by the subject.	Primary source, published by the subject.	No coverage visible.	✘ No
				? Unknown
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}}.

Y The source you added in is reliable but only passing mentioned. The article might have a chance to nominate for AfD if no additional IRS are found. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Creating article

Please create an article in via Wikipedia:Articles for creation where by the subject is notable, the content adhere to all the requirement and appropriate tagging/labeling/linkings as discussed from Assignment 1-8. Some notable subjects could be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/API Women.

Answer: I have created an article for Cornelia Ewigleben. I have submitted the draft (Draft:Cornelia Ewigleben) for review. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Modussiccandi Assignment 9 here. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I've got a question about the very last section of this assignment: Is the task to just create an article? I would be happy to do that. Since I'm autoconfirmed, I could just create the article right away without going through AfC. Do you still want me to put an article through AfC? Or is the task to review an article that is currently involved in AfC? Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Hi, create it via AfC and let me know once you have create (provide article name) even you have not finished. Do note to include everything you have learnt in the article such as adding cats, WikiProject info, short descripton, 5-7 IRS and etc. Thank you.08:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cassiopeia. I've finished all the tasks. Please feel free to review them. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Hi, I dont feel particular well this few days and I will review you assignment when I feel better. Sorry for the delay. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I'm sorry to hear that. It's no problem at all. Take your time to get better! Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Just went to the doc and was told I have shingles (face) that caused the rash and swallon and massive pain in my left upper side of my face and head. That was why I was so fatigue and suffer vision problems. I should be feel a little better, after stating my medican, in theis coming weakend and hope I can see better for a longer period of time to review your assignment. Appologies for the dely and thank you for the understanding. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks for the update. This sounds rather serious! I really do wish you a speedy recovery. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Appologies for taking so long to review your assignment (I have also reveiwed the remainign Assignment 5 AfD you nominated/voted). Thank for providing the (version) of the above assignment for it is extremely helpful for me to review it. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Notes

Assignment 1

• WP:AGF and not WP:BITE -We should always help the new editors who want to provide good contribution and want to improve Wikipedia even at time they might not know the the Wikipedia guidelines

• WP:Notability - 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.

• WP:GNG and SSN - both could be used when reviewing an article.

Assignment 2

• WP:Sources - Sources needed are significant coverage of published Independent / WP:SECONDARY , reliable sources to verify the content claimed where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not only passing mentioned.

Assignment 3

• WP:Content Policy - Article needs to adhere to Wikipedia Content Policy in article article title, WP:Biographies of living persons, image and text (Wikipedia:Image use policy and WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPOV, verifiability

• WP:COPYVIO - Public domain and note proper nouns are not Copyvio

• Wikipedia:Image use policy - check the original source

Assignment 4

• WP:CSD - go through the criteria

• WP:COI / WP:PAID - Self-disclosure by COI/PAID editors is one of the many ways we find out that they are COI/PAID. The different between a COI say an COI editor write about themselves, or friends is that written prose is not that perfect as compared that to a professional writers' (PAID editor). Secondly, if the article is about a company, the prose of the article is written more like a businesslike (business writing). Thirdly, professional paid editor would provide neat citations and only take one or 2 edits to create the article. In addition, professional PAID editors would create multiple different companies article that normal COI editors would not. Do note PAID is a subset of COI and an COI would also a PAID editor such as a small business owner write about their company or a rapper write about their own article in Wikipedia

• G11 (promo) - What constitute a G11? At times it is hard to define. Although if a article is blantantly promote or advertise about the subject then it is a G11. Sometimes, the it is a little subtle and that would be a judgement call. As a rule of thumb, if article about an entertainers (actor/singer/DJ/artist and etc) in dept of how hard they work, how motivated they are, using all the puffery/flowery languages and especially the subject does not meet notability guidelines. For a corporation, we would see they list down all they product/services, their directors/key person in the company, they mission, their client, they are the influencer in their industrial, all the words/phrased to enhance/market the company and no substantial info that is supported by independent reliable sources. If you look at the this version of Zapp Scooters which you tagged G11, I have to agree with the editor who removed the tag that it is not a G11 and unsourced info can be removed.

• G12 (copyvio) - Copyright violation addresses the use of original expression without permission of the holder which is a violation of laws even the credit is given to the source. For articles, the Copyright Law gives the copyright protection to the “original works of authorship fixed in in a tangible medium of expression” in the newspaper, magazine and freelance article at the moment of their creation, for the life of the creator plus 70 years after, and 95 years for corporation publication or 120 years from date of creation, whichever is shorter.

• A7, A9 and A11 - "Claimed of signification" - As long as the content states a claim of significant in regardless there is no source provided or the claim might not be true, then A7/A9/A11 does NOT apply. Example: "John Smiths is the US senator who lives in Texas" or " Let's Jump, Let's Dance is ranked #2 in Billboard chart in October 2019" or "DM7-29 is a U.S. self-propelled artillery gun developed in 2010 capable hitting the target of 500 miles" - all these 3 examples do claim of significant and some of them might not even be true and there have no source, but they do not qualify for A7/A9/A11. The option is either to PROP them or to do a WP:BEFORE or to do a R2, for potential subject, if it has no source or only primary source provided and if they fails the WP:BEFORE then AfD them. A7 would be something like "John Smiths is my high school teacher, who have a lot of knowledge of algebra" or "The Minnesota Valhalla is the heavy metal band from Minnesota. The band makes up of my brother, Alan, my little sister, Mary and two of my mates, Ken and Jesus. We practice every Monday and Friday at our home garage".

Assignment 5

• WP:NPPDRAFT - do so for articles have no sources or sources that are primary/not independent, such as from their home page, user generated sites or sport databases, club home page for sportspersons. If you would find 3 independent, reliable sources to support the notability of the subject, then please do so and add the source in the article and mark reviewed. It can be tempting for new reviewers to overuse this; it should not be used as a substitute for taking an article to AfD.

• PROD - (1) When it does not fall under CSD but not controversial deletion with the notion that it will be deleted if the article is AfDed. (2) We can only PROD the article once thus do check the history page to make sure the article has not been PROD before. (3) If the PROD is removed, do not replace it (4) PROD would last for 7 day start from the date of the nomination and will be either deleted or removed of the tag by an uninvolved admin who decides the outcome of the nomination.

• BLPROD - (1) nominated if only there is no source for article about a living person. (2) BLPPROD can be removed only an reliable is added. (3) Even item 2 has been performed but editor still think it is should be deleted under PROD (1) criteria then a PROD can be tag. (3) if PROD (1) is not applicable and editor could nominate the article for AfD if the subject is not notable.

• AfD - Nominated articles to AfD if the subject is not notable or fall under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. A WP:BEFORE should be done prior the nominated. If the article states the nationality of the subject and a local name is provided, do search the local name in said country in Google to look for sources if any (2) Reason / justification based on notability guidelines should be address when nominate AfD or participate in a AfD. (3) Do not AfD if the sources are provided but you can locate/view them due to paywall, print book/article to determined the content claimed as per sources. (4) Request paywall article /print book from WP:RX to view the content (make sure you have you email provided in your preferences page, so the RX editors could send you the article via email). (4) You might want to reconsider to AfD an article if the sources of the article would be found mostly in other languages besides English or your languages you comprehend. For example if an article is about a Russian poet or sportman or actors / singer but the subject has not reach worldwide notability/popularity where by most source could not be found in their country reliable newspapers or books other languages but English. I dont often participate/vote for Indian actors as I dont read any Indian languages.

Assignment 6

• Taggaing - sue scripts/tools to tag appropriate cat/wikiproject/subsort/issues in the their respectively fields.

Assignment 7

• Many ways to communicate with the editors - focus on the subject not the ediots. Be civil and helpful always.

While notability is the most important concept for a reviewer, communication is our most important responsibility. Communication takes a few forms for the NPP reviewer:

• Always using clear and helpful edit summaries while patrolling - While using edit summaries is generally good practice, while doing NPP it's important to take it a step further. For instance, a common occurance will be to find an album by a musician with a page, but a particular album doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM. The normal patrol action here is to redirect the album to the page of the artist. An inadequate edit summary would be "redirecting to artist" or some such. I prefer a more complete summary along the lines of "No indication in article of how album is notable per WP:NALBUMS. Redirecting as an WP:ATD."
• Edit summaries are not a replacement, however, for real communication. Depending on context this should either be done on the talk page or the user talk page of the editor. This is especially to be done even if the other editor is only communicating through edit summaries. We have a higher obligation to do it right. Doing this proactively is great. Just as frequently it will be more reactive - for most editors who contact you it will be out of confusion or ignorance. However you will get some angry ones as well. In all cases being the calm professional one in the conversation is vital.
• The final main mode of communication is through the toolset itself. Find a great article? Make sure to leave a comment. See a few articles in a row by a newer user all of which are notable? Leave some wiki love.
• There are a few essential policies and guidelines when it comes to communication. Please read (or re-read) Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, and Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Assignment 8

• Tools - as per listed

Assignment 9

• Reviewing article - Apply what have learnt from Assignment 1-8 when reviewing article.

• Paywall site: If the source is from a paywall site, then see help from WP:RX and you need to forward me the print article once WP:RX send it to you via email.

• Lack of sources : If there is lack of sources, we need to do a WP:BEFORE, then we and add in the sources (at least 3 independent, reliable sources in the article) if we going to mark review.

• Print sources: I do suggest to avoid any print sources for they are hard to located.

• Digital sources of foreign languages: If the sources are digital and in foreign languages, then get it translated.

• Filtering: If you are going to AfD, or PROD then you need to provide reasons of why you are doing do. I would like you to work on different outcomes (some review, some nominated AfD or PROD); however, you still need to do the rest of the requirement such as tagging cats, Wiki Project, subsort (if it is a sub class), send personal messages and etc.

• Work on subject you are familiar with

• For any article without source and you would like to review it and accept the article (meet notability requirements) then you need to find the independent sources (at least 3) which would support the content claimed then place inline citation.

• If you have a hard time to find (say the sources most probably in foreign languages) and it is a potential article, then do a R2.

• For foreign language sources, use google translate, I do that all the time.

• If there is a native name provided in the article, and you know which country the subject is from, then google the native name with the associate country in google search such as a Russian subject then Google search on "native name.ru".

• When reviewing, first pls check if the article fit CSD criteria (do remember to check copyvio), then if the article has no source - do a R2 (I usualy do a R2 for potential article) or tag BLPPROD if it is a BLP or search for the source (I always search for source if I know the subject is notable and add the sources it). For sourced articles, check sources against content claimed. If meet notability guidelines (at least 3 independent, reliable sources needed and check SSN guidelines), then mark review. If the article fails the notability guidelines, then do a PROD if you think if send to AfD will be a definitely delete or nominate AfD for discussion, if you think a discussion should take place.

• Always check all the sources. Any articles that you not sure if it meets notability guidelines, then left them to other patroller.

• When reviewing, make sure take your time - always quality over quantity.

• Creating article - make sure the subject is notable with significant coverage of published Independent / WP:SECONDARY , reliable sources to verify the content claimed where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not only passing mentioned.

---

Modussiccandi Hi, This is a reading Assignment 10 and after this is the Final exam. Let me know if you have any questions before I post the final exam questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all this, Cassiopeia! I think I am ready for the final exam, best Modussiccandi (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Final Exam

Part 1

1. In your own words, why and how do communicate with the editor and why it is important to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE them?

• Answer: Wikipedia is a collaborate project which everyone can edit and where decisions are generally made by consensus. It is therefore very important that we communicate well with other editors. There are several ways to communicate on Wikipedia. If we want to communicate directly with a single editor their talk page is the best place to reach them. If the issue is relevant to one particular article, we could write a post on the article talk page and ping the other editor. In general, a good first principle is to leave precise edit summaries so that others know our intentions in making an edit.

Assuming good faith is on of the most important principles in dealing with other editors. Good faith is essential for Wikipedia to work: since the project can be edited by anybody, large numbers of bad faith editors could do serious damage. Thus, we need to make every edit in good faith but also show others that we assume their good faith. If one editors alleges bad faith in others, they are likely to begin questioning his or her good faith in return; this leads to a vicious cycle of mistrust. Not biting the newcomers is closely related to AGF. Most newcomers don't yet know the rules of Wikipedia but most of them simply want to improve the encyclopaedia. When they do make mistakes, experienced editors should never accuse them of bad faith since it is likely they just don't know any better. If we criticise them aggressively/unconstructively, they will be turned off from the project and might stop editing. Thus, it is vital that we treat them in a friendly and constructive manner. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Sometimes we can also communicate a particular issues on WP:WikiProject of a specific subject - see here the list of WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. We communicate with other editors if we have would like to change/add new Wikipedia guideliens at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. We also use Wikipedia talk page to communicate with other editors on certain specific Wikipedia page such as Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and many more. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

2. What kind of sources are needed to demonstrate/contribute the notability of the subject? Why it is important?

• Answer: To be included in Wikipedia subjects must be notable. Sources which make a subject notable must have three qualities:

• Reliable: sources are deemed reliable if they are published by an author/organisation/publisher/website with a good record for accuracy and fact-checking. They must also be sure to represent a reasonable census view, i.e. one that gives due weight to major and large minor views, but little or none to fringe views. Established newspapers and publishing houses will often be the source for such material. But, in principle, any source that has a good editorial process and fact-checking process can be counted as reliable.

• Independent: sources are deemed independent if they have no connection with the subject (third-party). Independent sources will not be written by someone with financial or personal or any other ties to the subject: family members, spouses, employers, friends, business partners, business owners etc. Naturally, the source should also not be the author of a source. Another way of showing independence is through fair representation: sources that are overly positive about their subjects will not be independent either. What we are looking for is a balanced and disinterested coverage.

• The coverage of the subject must be significant: significant coverage addresses the subject in some detail. Mentions in passing or mere listings are not enough to meet this criterion. This is to ensure that the subject has actually received enough attention to merit a stand-alone article. What we want to avoid is trivial mention like: "Hundreds of people showed up to the concert, including [subject]."

All three qualities must be present to make a source count towards a subject's notability. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

3.What constitutes a WP:COPYVIO? and why it is not a copyvio even the texts are identical the same as per sources?

• Answer: We are dealing with a copyright violation if content (mostly text but it can also be media) is copied from a copyrighted source. All sources are considered under copyright unless they have been explicitly been made available for redistribution (e.g. under a cc licence ) or if they are in the public domain. Close paraphrasing of a source also falls under this rule. One of Wikipedia's important features is that its content is free to be redistributed by anyone. To be sure that no laws are broken, we must make sure that no copyright violations remain on the project.

In some cases, identical content need not constitute a copyright violation. Examples of this include brief quotations from copyrighted sources that are clearly marked as such and text from sources with expired copyright, e.g. books published before 1925. Another source of permissible identical text are copies from Wikipedia itself: since Wikipedia is a much-read source, many website chose to copy content from the project onto their site. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Identical content is also allowed if it is copied from a public domain site. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

4. What should we do when we encounter WP:COPYVIO article and what should we place on the COPYVIO editor's talk page?

• Answer: When we encounter an article with copyvio issues, there are two distinct scenarios. One scenario is an article that is completely or overwhelmingly made up of copyvio material. We then have to check if there is a "clean" version in the page history to revert back to. If there isn't, we should nominate the page for speedy deletion under G12. The other scenario is when only a part of the article is affected by copyvio issues. In this case we should remove only the content in question. The ideal way of doing this is to look in the page history. Perhaps, if the damage was added recently, we can revert. Alternatively, if the violation is blatant, we can apply for WP:REVDEL for the versions that added the copyvio content. In both cases, we need to place a warning message on the editor's talk page. One way to do this is the template {{subst:uw-copyvio|article}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

5. What should we do when we encounter WP:PAID article and what should we place on the PAID editor's talk page?

• Answer: Editors who are compensated for making edits on Wikipedia must disclose the details of their engagement to comply with our policy in conflicts of interest. If we believe that an editor has not disclosed his status as a paid editor, we should raise this in a civil way on their talk page. Should this not resolve the problem, the editor can be reported at WP:COIN or WP:ANI. The article itself should be tagged with a tag indicating that a contributor might be an undisclosed paid editor. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. We should also place a WP:PAID in editor's talk page and get them to disclosed the PIAD on their user page and article talk page. In addition, if a PAID article has yet to gone through WP:AfC (Article for creation) process, then we MUST move the page to draft space. PAID article needs to go through first AFC review then NPP review prior it can be made in main space. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

6. When do we nominated a page for WP:G12 and when do we WP:REVDEL the COPYVIO text?

• Answer: Speedy deletion under G12 is appropriate when a page and its history are irrevocably corrupted with copyvio text. If there is still clean version to revert to, this should be preferred. If we want to REVDEL, the target must be a specific version of the page history that constitutes a blatant copyright violation. In summary, G12 will erase the entire page and its history, while REVDEL will target only a specific version of the page. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

7. What constitute an article is a WP:PROMO page? and what should do do when we encounter one?

• Answer: Some articles are written exclusively to promote a product, an organisation, a person, a viewpoint etc. These articles will be written only in positive terms. They will not respect Wikipedia's NPOV requirements. They might contain puff language and may often be sourced from non-independent sources. In many cases, these pages will not meet the project's notability requirements. If it is possible to re-write the article in a manner that complies with Wikipedia's policies on NPOV, that is our first option. Otherwise, we nominate for speedy deletion under G11. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. In regardless the subject is notable or not, if the page is written like a promo then G11 it. Sometimes PROMO can be written in a more subtle way, but it still resembles in the way the article is written (too much information about the products, for example, or a lot of subject background (especially singers/DJs/musicians and yet the subjects are not notable under WP:NMUSIC and etc.). Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

8. Why do we tag a page? What are the normal tags we place in an article

• Answer: We tag pages to highlight problems to other editors and readers. While fixing the problems ourselves would be even better, tagging is still a good practice because it alerts others potential issues, it warns readers about shortcomings in the article content and it allows other editors to fix problems you might not be able to fix yourself. Common tags include: notability, NPOV, cleanup, citation and copy editing. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

9. When do we WP:R2 a page?

• Answer: The most common occurrence of R2 is the following: When a mainsapace article has been moved to draft, the original article becomes a redirect to the draft page. Since R2 is there to eliminate such redirects from the mainspace, the leftover redirect can be deleted under that criterion. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y R2 happens is to move from on namespace to another. Here we mainly talk about moving a new article from main space (new page) to draft and request the the move from a admin where we nominate the page for R2. Note: use R2 sparingly. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

10. When do we WP:PROD a page?

• Answer: When we think that an article clearly violates Wikipedia's policies, our first thought should be speedy deletion. However, the CSD are narrowly defined and many articles will not meet them. In such as case, if the violation is blatant, we can PROD the article. This will be swifter than AfD, unless another editor challenges. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y We PROD a page if it doesn't pass the notability guidelines (both general and specific), doesn't meet any of CSD criteria and we believe the deletion would not be controversial - no one will object. If the tag survives 7 days and a reviewing administrator agrees - it will be deleted. If someone objects to PROD it can't be used anymore.07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

11. When do we WP:BLPPROD a page?

• Answer: Wikipedia's policies for biographies of living persons are particularly strict. Thus, when we come across an article about a living person that does not have any sources. Unlike normal PROD, these articles will be deleted after 7 days unless at least one source is added. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. If there are links in External links section or anywhere else – we can't use BLPPROD. Also bothe BLPROD and PROD is lasted seven day unless a source is added to BLPROD then the tag can be removed and if a PROD is removed, we can NOT PROD again. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

12. When do we WP:AfD a page?

• Answer: Sometimes none of the alternative deletion processes apply (CSD, PROD, BLPROD) and we still think that an article violates the guidelines. In these cases, we can nominate the article for deletion (AfD). This will trigger a discussion for 7 days where editors can discuss whether the article should be deleted or not. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y In addition, we AfD a page if we deem the subject is not notable after we do a WP:BEFORE. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

13. Why it is important to WP:CSD a page when the article fit the CSD criteria?

• Answer: CSD exist for a reason: every day problematic and even offensive content gets added to Wikipedia. This content has to be deleted quickly so that the project's reputation for integrity is not diminished. The CSD criteria are formulated narrowly. If a page meets them, it is certain to be harmful to the project. Therefore, speedy deletion must always be done when possible in order to keep Wikipedia clean of problematic content. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y CSDs are strict criteria under which the articles can be deleted speedily by admins without discussion and consensus. So it's not only remove problematic or offensive content from Wikipedia but it is also important to CSD such articles to avoid possible legal issues (if it's a copyvio), or promo page as Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and not a advertising/promo sites. It also to reduce the time on deletion discussions (as such articles have no chance to survive the discussion). But it's important to apply CSD properly. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

14. When do we decide to WP:R2 / WP:PROD / WP:BLPPROD a page when the article has no source in it?

• Answer: [I will presume that R2 here stands for move to draft.] When deciding between these three options, the first question we have to ask is whether some chance to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia if more time were invested in finding sources. If the answer is yes, we should move to draft and tag the remaining link for R2. If the answer is no, we need to determine whether the article is about a living person. If yes, we BLPROD. If no, we PROD. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

15. In your own words, list 5 things you have learnt from observing and participating in AfD.

• Answer I: That one's opinions might need to change after new evidence comes to light. Oftentimes, one goes into an AfD with a set view of an article. This is especially true when one is the nominator. During the course of an AfD, lots of new sources and views can be presented and it sometimes happens that one's original view is no longer tenable. Then, it is best to acknowledge this and change one's !vote. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: That sometimes strict adherence to the guidelines will not make Wikipedia better. I have noticed in a few AfD's on pornographic performer that it can be very difficult for them to clearly meet GNG or SNG. In these AfD's, the subjects were very well known and had lots of sources available. The problem was that none of them seemed to clearly cross the reliability threshold. Both AfDs ended in a "keep" result, which I thought was good because the subjects would have been notable in many other professions. However, such leeway should be exercised with caution and only through consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. AfD is dependent on (1) the notability of the subject, (ii) the number of participant of the discussion (iv) the judgmental call of the closing admin. Sometimes a subject is notable but no independent reliable sources can be found during the 7 days (or extension of 7 days), the page can either be deleted/keep/redirect/move to draft. I have seen cases that a Italian marathon runner who ran on 1920 or 30 Olympic games article was a keep even there is only one non independent but reliable source from the Omplyic official site, However, I have 30+ Indian cricketers with only first names and no last names was argue to death by the cricket editors to make all of them keeps but the article were deleted after a year later (note: We can nominate the article again and again even the initial result is a keep, if we deem the subject fails the notability guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: That many editors, including myself at times, are not willing to change their views in light of the facts. I often feel that participants in AfDs form their opinion of an article once and are reluctant to change later. I have been guilty of this behaviour myself. In these situations, I think it is best to assume good faith and hope for more new participants to join in on the debate. Repeatedly retaliating usually does not make things better. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y It is a normal human nature to want to prove our views are right. 's OK to change your opinion as the result of discussion or withdraw your nomination. Everyone can be wrong. I have withdraw some AfD nomination myself. However, when it comes to AfD, we base our discussion first on notability ground (which means IRS sources are needed) and also on SSN. Sometimes, an editor might not know the Wikipedia guidelines, and what it seems right to them might fit into Wikipedia guidelines. (Note sister Wikipedia sites (different languages Wikipedia) do not share the same guidelines and they operate independent from each other. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: That a small percentage of AfDs take the most time to resolve. I have often felt that the majority of discussions are faulty uncontroversial and wrap up in the minimum amount of time (7 days). However, I have participated in some that dragged one for several weeks, and sometimes no consensus is found. It is therefore often more impactful to cast a !vote in an older/more complicated AfD than in one that is likely to finish without a non-consensus !vote. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Sometimes, there are some meat editors (those editors like certain subject and get their friends to join in the discussion) and argue to death that the subject should be in Wikipedia main space as they think the subject is so well-known (such as TV news reporters they see/watch everyday) for many years.07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: That keeping a cool head is among the most important skills to have. In complex and controversial discussions editors often end up taking a lot of ownership in their views and are willing to defend them. Sometimes, editors feel so strongly about an article that expressing a contrary opinion may lead to some tension. In these situations, I have leant that it is best not reply immediately. Giving it a few hours or days will help yourself cool down and see only the facts of the matter. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. AfD discussion should not be a battle field. Keeping a cool head is very important when it comes to discussion. This is a very important especially for the counter vandalism editors (there is a program for this also if you want to join). Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Part 2

Pls read WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD 11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and hist diff/links

• Answer I: Draft:Depiction Clothing, [11]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: Draft:Anshuman Pattnaik, [12]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: Draft:Hari Prasad Paudyal, [13]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: Draft:Subaash Chhetri, [14]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: Draft:Dr. Ajit Raizada, [15]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Part 3

Pls read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and provide 5 successful CSD 12 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and hist diff and I will check them at your CSD log. You can use Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool to check if an article is in violation of COPYVIO.

• Answer I: Razorpay, [16] (has since been re-created)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: Mary Teresa Collins, [17] (has since been re-created)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: Draft:Jay Wearden, [18] (also G11)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: Meisam Yousefi, [19]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: Draft:Best Iranian Handicrafts, [20]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Part 4

Pls read and A1-A11 and R2 at WP:CSD and and provide 5 successful "Article CSD" articles (with at least two of them are CSD A7) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Pls provide the article names and hist diff.

• Answer I: The Stiner Republic (A11), [21]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: Creators19, (A7) [22]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: Noah Verner, (A7) [23]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: Trezbilog Clan (A7), [24]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: Ayele Abebe (A7), [25]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Part 5

1. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons.

• Answer I: Dylan Toth, with the following rationale:

Sources are neither independent nor sigcov. The article was created by an editor whose username resembles the subject's name, which leads me to think that this is merely a non-notable autobiography. I couldn't find any RIS on this subject. Since none of the CSD fit, I'm proposing this for deletion. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: Yug Devgan, with the following rationale:

Notability is not inherited, and the subject is not notable except in connection with his relatives (WP:INVALIDBIO). I'm not BLPRODing because it is likely the creator will ad sources in spite of the subject being non-notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

2. Nominate 1 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons.

Answer I: Valentina Acosta (American actress), the article was on a living person and had no source at all. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

3. Pls read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT and provide 2 successful WP:R2 from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Pls provide the article names and hist diff.

• Answer I: Call setup, [26]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: IIt's a Jungle out There (Alexander McQueen's Collection), [27]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Part 6

1. Participate in 5 WP:AFD where by you are the first voter of the discussion. Please provide you reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.

• Answer i: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papierfabrik Louisenthal,

I !voted keep with the following rationale:

While the article is inadequate and needs some work to be acceptable, the nominator appears to misconstrue the source situation. I have done a 5 minute google search and have found the following sources:

• [28] an article in Münchner Merkur a reliable albeit regional newspaper
• [29] from Sächsische Zeitung, a significant newspaper from Saxony
• [30] from Dresdener Neueste Nachrichten, a minor newspaper from Saxony

In all three sources, coverage is significant. Now, in No.2, there might be concerns over independence but my cursory look through the sources has shown several additional articles which could be used.' Overall, the subject meets WP:CORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. The outcome was "no concensus". As a practice, if we do a WP:BEFORE and find sources then we add them in the article besides mentioned (provide links) in the AfD. Although WP:NCORP notability is very strict, and the sources didnt 100% meet the requirement, but due to the company has been establish for very long time and it is in Germany, sources would be a little hard to find for no German editors, but I believe as you are there are sources out there.21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sceptre (Russian band)

I !voted delete with the following rationale:

They seem to be a bit more than a garage band. I've found this article, but it doesn't, of course, demonstrate notability. Some niche coverage can be found too but nothing to suggest they meet WP:BAND. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Well-done. I like you explanation to the article creator on WP:BAND criterions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auchenshoogle

I !voted delete with the following rationale:

While the work itself (Oor Wullie) appears to be notable, I have not found any reliable coverage of the subject either. Since WP:FICTION calls for fictional subjects to meet the same WP:GNG as any other subject, I will say delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Iannella

I !voted delete with the following rationale:

Played her games a in league that is not listed as fully-professional. Besides being a WP:GNG fail, the subject also fails WP:FOOTYN. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Shand

I !voted delete with the following rationale:

There is the article from the BBC but it doesn't constitute significant coverage. There is a lot of non-independent stuff available, but I could not find any reliable coverage either. Therefore, I think this is a WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO fail. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Part 7

Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanation of your nomination.

• Answer I: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okeano, with the following rationale:

he article is sourced only from the company's own website. A search does not reveal any independent coverage, significant or otherwise. What keeps this article from being straightforwardly promotional is that it doesn't reek of the normal puff language, though NPOV is still not adhered to. Overall, the source situation makes it a WP:GNG and WP:NWEB fail. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoulPage IT Solutions, with the following rationale:

The sources provided at the bottom of the article are mere listings and do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. I've found another article with somewhat more coverage (this) but I'm not sure this is sigcov either. Having done a search, some other articles with brief mentions are available. Overall, I believe WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY is not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Member.buzz, with the following rationale:

The article is sourced from a selection of non-independent sources. The one reliable source is the WFMJ-TV article, though it reads like a PR piece. Lots of non-third-party sources can be found via Google but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey James La Barrie, with the following rationale:

Although some reliable sources are provided, I believe this subject is only famous for WP:ONEEVENT. The sources all focus on his death and it is doubtful whether he would have been notable before. In fact, a recent AfD resolved to delete the article of the somewhat prominent Brian Hull who has more than 2 Million subscribers. This subject had 300,000. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, this article should be deleted. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. It was WP:COI article as well. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Yarkot, with the following rationale:

The article does not have any sources and a WP:BEFORE search did not reveal anything other than self-published content. The creator has expressed that he wants to expand the article but there is nothing to suggest the subject is notable. While this might actually be PROD/BLPROD territory, I thought I'd take the article to AfD because the creator would likely object/add a source. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Part 8

Pls list 10 things needs to be considered/done when reviewing a page.'

• Answer i: One should not try to get a page deleted very shortly after its creation. I have noticed that improvements will sometimes be made in the next ten minutes or so. If we are too fast when trying to get a page deleted, we may actually prevent good content from being added to Wikipedia. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Usually we wait for 2 hours after creation to act. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: One should always try and find additional sources if notability is in doubt. Inexperienced creators will often fail to extract all the available IRS. Therefore, it is good to make sure that a subject really is non-notable before tagging for deletion. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Good as it is a good practice. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: Sometimes, guidelines will not provide the perfect answer. With some articles the question of notability will come down to a very contentious detail such as whether a foreign language sources is reliable. In these cases, we must exercise judgement and there is always a chance that we're wrong. It is best to consult other editors in such a situation. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iv: We should always have a view for the medium-term future of the article. For example, if we choose not to attempt deletion, will a different editor disagree and move to AfD? If we PROD, will the creator object? Is the page likely to be improved if moved to draft or will it rot in the draft space? To some degree, our decisions need to be informed by these considerations. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer v: Only review on topics we are familiar with. We may not understand everything in a given article and thus we are liable to misunderstand the notability guidelines. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer vi: When reviewing, one should be open to changing one's mind after reading all the sources. I've touched on this earlier: we sometimes come to articles with an opinion already formed. After checking all of the available sources, it may be possible that the facts contradict the opinion we had before. So, in order to make the right judgements, we should keep an open mind about the articles we review. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. We normally review a page based on notability guidlines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer vii: We should resist the temptation of A7. One encounters many articles which appear to be clearly non-notable and not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It may be tempting to nominate them with CSD A7 because of a perceived lack of importance. However, this is not how A7 is intended to be used: we should only use A7 for articles that do not credibly state why their subject is significant. Any credible assertion of importance ('John Doe is the president of North-East Ohio chess club') prevents the use of this criterion. Of course, other criteria may still apply. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer viii: One should research all possible SNG carefully. Many articles do not meet GNG but are still notable under some SNG. It can often be tempting to say that an article fails GNG and, say, WP:ANYBIO. Often there are more SNG that may be applicable and it is important that we commit to finding them. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Espcialy subject is a scholar. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer xi: Have patience. Some articles have dozens of sources to go through. If we commit to reviewing any given article, we need to have the patience to thoroughly review all the relevant material. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Take your time - quality over quantity. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer x: We should communicate with the creator about issues. If only small issues prevent an article from being marked as reviewed, we should reach out to the creator and tell them about it. Even if the article qualifies for deletion, we should always keep whoever created the article in the loop. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Part 9

Pls follow the NPP flowchart and read all the reading material provide from Assignment and tools 1-8 and answer the questions below. Please pick 5 articles that meet the notability guidelines (no PROD/BLPPROD/R2/AfD/CSD) from the new pages from Special:NewPagesFeed and follow the NPP flowchart and provide the appropriate answer below (pls place N/A if not applicable). Pick articles that have 3-4 sources for the exercises below. (pls provide link and hist diff)

1

1.

1. Article = E.B. Allen, as of this version
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Stub class
8. Short Descr = American writer and coal miner
9. Categories = 1936 births, Poets from Kentucky, American coal miners
10. Review = AfD
11. Reason (for 10) = The sources do not indicate notability. After I found nothing on Google, I checked WP:NACTOR. Even if he played a large role in Harlan County, USA, that would not satisfy the criterion of having played in multiple notable films. Will nominate for AfD. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3190851/	Appears independent of the subject.	IMDb is not normally reliable.	Mentioned in passing	✘ No
http://www.dmm.org.uk/pitwork/html/reb.htm	? There may be a connection with the subject.	The website is obscure.	Gives a poem by the subject.	✘ No
https://www.fuji.marines.mil/About/History/	Webpage of the US marines. The subject was affiliated with them in the past but I think this is distant enough to be independent.	Appears reliable, published by a .mil domain.	The subject is not mentioned.	✘ No
https://eu.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/oldham/2014/08/08/oldham-student-gets-grandfathers-war-story/13763961/	Project by a relative of the subject.	High circulation newspaper in Kentucky.	Biography of the subject.	✘ 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}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

2

2.

1. Article = Death of Quawan Charles, as of this version
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Start Class
8. Short Descr = 2020 death in Loreauville, Louisiana
9. Categories = Death in Louisiana, 2020 deaths, Incidents of violence against boys
10. Review = Reviewed
11. Reason (for 10) = Meets GNG with more than two IRS. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/12/quawan-charles-death/	Washington Post is not connected to the subject.	Washington Post is reliable.	The article is about the subject.	✔ Yes
https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspicious-circumstances-black-teen-found-dead-louisiana/story?id=74180637	ABC news is not connected with the subject.	ABC news is a reliable news source.	The article is about the subject.	✔ Yes
https://people.com/crime/quawan-bobby-charles-black-louisiana-boy-died-suspiciously-family-seeks-justice/	No connection to subject.	People is deemed reliable for biographical information per WP:RSP. Since it can be problematic on contentious matters, I am reluctant to say it is reliable in this instance.	The article is about the subject.	✘ No
https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_f486ef0a-25ff-11eb-bda8-ff9ef618b40c.html	No apparent connection.	The Advocat is reliable source for the area.	The article is about the subject.	✔ 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}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

3

3.

1. Article = Restless (Trevor Daniel album), my review was done with version but see below for details.
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = fair use
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Stub class
8. Short Descr = 2019 studio album by Trevor Daniel
9. Categories = Album stubs, 2019 debut albums, Trevor Daniel (singer) albums
10. Review = Reviewed
11. Reason (for 10) = The sources analysis below shows that the album fails GNG. After this source was added, I concluded that the album narrowly meets WP:NALBUMS. It's a borderline case but I think together with this piece from Billboard the article would survive an AfD. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://hypebeast.com/2019/3/trevor-daniel-restless-ep-stream	The website is independent.	The website does not appear reliable.	The source covers the album.	✘ No
https://www.complex.com/music/2019/03/trevor-daniel-restless-stream	The website is independent.	The source does not, at first look, appear reliable. But, having done some research, I am willing to deem it reliable.	The mention is more than trivial.	✔ Yes
https://music.apple.com/us/album/restless-ep/1456442070	Published on behalf of the subject.	Apple music is a reliable source of information on music.	Only a listing of tracks.	✘ No
https://listen.tidal.com/album/105950242/credits	Published on behalf of the subject.	Tidal is reliable for basic info on music.	Only a listing of tracks.	✘ 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}}.

Y. Adding IRS always helps. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

4

4.

1. Article = Ayacucho antpitta, as of this version
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = yes
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Start class
8. Short Descr = Species of bird
9. Categories = Birds of Peru, Endemic fauna of Peru, Grallaria
10. Review = Reviewed
11. Reason (for 10) = Meet WP:GNG, all sources are IRS. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4817.1.1	Independent scholarly article.	Peer-reviewed journal.	Talks in detail about the distinction of the subject from larger species.	✔ Yes
http://www.sci-news.com/biology/six-new-antpitta-species-08945.html	No connection with the subject.	Website is reliable for science-related info.	Talks in detail about the subject.	✔ Yes
https://academic.oup.com/auk/article/137/3/ukaa009/5857559	Independent academic journal.	Peer reviewed-journal.	Detailed study of distinct features of the species.	✔ Yes
				? Unknown
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}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

5

5.

1. Article = Elmer Pato, as of this version.
2. Article titles = OK
3. Images copyright = N/A
4. NPOV = initially no but I the puff language; now good to go.
5. COI / PAID = none
6. COPYVIO = none
7. Article Class = Stub class
8. Short Descr = Filipino taekwondoin
9. Categories = Several, including Filipino martial artists, Taekwondo practitioners at the 1986 Asian Games, 2020 deaths
10. Review = Reviewed
11. Reason (for 10) = He fails GNG because I could not find a second IRS with sigcov on him. He is close to meeting in WP:ANYBIO because of his involvement in the foundation of the Philippine Taekwondo Association but I believe there isn't enough verifiable info about this. The reason I'm willing to say this is notable is WP:SPORTSPERSON: he participated in the 1986 Asian Games and won a medal at the Asian Taekwondo championships. I'm willing to give him the pass: if he was from Europe/US there would likely be more sources on him given is achievements in the sport. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
12. Sources

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://manilastandard.net/sports/fightsports/329714/covid-19-claims-3rd-taekwondo-ph-victim.html	National newspaper with no apparent connection.	Established newspaper in the Philippines.	Only mention in passing.	✘ No
http://tempo.com.ph/2020/07/21/taekwondo-pioneer-passes-away/	Artikel or publication are independent.	Website is affiliated with the Manila Bulletin, a leading newspaper in the country.	The article covers subject in some depth.	✔ Yes
https://news.abs-cbn.com/sports/07/30/20/ph-taekwondo-community-mourns-passing-of-ex-champ-2-other-jins-succumb-to-covid	Major broadcaster, independent of the subject.	ABS-CBN is reliable for Philippine news.	Only press release-style mention.	✘ No
https://theworldnews.net/ph-news/taekwondo-pioneer-passes-away	Content is sourced from source No.2	? Reliability of the site is uncertain.	The article covers subject in some depth.	✘ 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}}.

Y. Good work on removing the WP:PUFF. 1976 is before the internet era and there would be some print sources in Filipino. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Part 10

Creating article

Please create an article in via Wikipedia:Articles for creation where by the subject is notable, the content adhere to all the requirement and appropriate tagging/labeling/linking as discussed from Assignment 1-8. Some notable subjects could be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/API Women.

Answer: I have submitted Draft:Eva Forest at AfC. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. Impresive writing and IRS. Well-done. You might want to removed the red ink links in the article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Modussiccandi, Here is the final exam questions. All the best. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I have a couple of questions relating to the final exam: 1) I moved this article to draft because it was a very brief stub with no sources. But I thought the topic might be notable, that's why I didn't attempt to nominate it for deletion. Now I've had this conversation with the article's creator. What is the best way to proceed? Does this equate a reason for CSD G6? 2) I nominated Mary Teresa Collins for CSD G12 because it had lots of copyvio material. The article was deleted but now it's been recreated without Copyvio issues. How can I demonstrate to you that it was originally deleted? Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi, Good day. First of all do not that moving an article to draft space yourself is different than requested the article to be move by admin via R2. The assignment here is to request R2 and the admin move the page to another name space (draft space). There is another move manger right which a small group of users/reviewers have which they would move main space articles (usually new articles) to main space without the admin intervention or request for R2. Reviewers/editors would request the move manager user right after demonstrating many successful R2. Normal move by editors usually is changing the article names with the option of leaving a redirect behind / moving the article talk page along.

For you question 1. The creator is a reviewer who knows about reviewing/patrolling articles well. You have 2 options. (i) leave the article in draft space for other editors might want to work on the article. Do note if no one edits the article in 6 months in draft space, it could be denominated for G13. (ii) Article in draft space can NOT be AfD (There is a WP:AfC (Article for Creation - which means the article is created in the draft space instead of mainspce). We can CSD draft space for G11, G12 and after 6 months with no edits by editor for G13. So if you want to AfD the article, you need to move the article back to main space first then AfD it. However, you need to do a WP:BEFORE to make sure the subject is not notable for no IRS (indepndent, reliable source) would be found before dominating AfD the article. I am not technical for such I cant advise you about the subject notability here.

For you question 2. In your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Modussiccandi/CSD_log CSD log], it shows you have nominated the page for CSD G12 on November 10 2020 and in the All public logs (type the article name in the "Target (title or User:username for user):" field) shows the article was deleted on November 10, 2020 by admin Jimfbleak. The log also shows the article has been created on WIKIBB2020 on November 10, 2020. Note any deleted article can be asked for WP:REFUND and if they would be work on quickly to remove the issues in the article before it is nominated and deleted, then it could stay in the mainspace for review.

Let me know if anything else I could help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Cassiopeia:, I'm happy to tell you that I have finished the final exam. Please feel free to review it. Thank you and best, Modussiccandi (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi, Ok, thanks for informing. Give me some time as it is a lot to reveiw. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi,Reviewed. Sorry for the delay. I was a little busy for the last two weeks catching up with other Wikipedia work and some personal tasks as to review a final exam for NPPS would take a few big blocks of free time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you so very much. Please accept my apologies for pestering you with my requests! You were a great teacher and really did learn a lot during the process. If you don't mind me asking: what are the next steps for me to start reviewing? Modussiccandi (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi, You could apply for the NPP reveiwer right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, which I noticed you had applied today. The user righ is for NPP page but not the draft page (AfC). For draft page reveiwer, that would be another request for permission and even thought both NPP and AfC (Article for creation) share most of the guidelines; however, there are some different. There is no program for AfC reviewer but I have guardeted a few editors and provide them the info/differences when reviewing AfC page. Let me know if you want to know. Stay safe Modussiccandi and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you for the offer. I am generally interested in reviewing at AfC. I'd first like to see whether my request for new page reviewer goes through. If that works well, I'll get back to you about AfC. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Completion

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the New pages patrol School on your successful completion of my NPPSCHOOL instruction! You have now graduated from the New pages patrol School and completed your final exam with 98.5%. Well done!

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).

{{User NPPSCHOOL/Graduate|graduate}}:

This user is an NPP SCHOOL graduate.

@Modussiccandi: It's been a real pleasure to work with you over the past few months. I hope you gained something from this course, and if you have any questions, do drop a message on my talk page. Best of luck, and thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this role. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)