Wikipedia:Quick guide to reviewing new articles: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:48, 26 July 2022

Latest revision as of 06:33, 17 April 2023

(7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 20:

'''[[WP:R|Redirect]]''' – articles that don't meet notability guidelines but are mentioned or discussed in another article, conversion to redirect is a valid alternative to deletion. This can be done as a [[WP:BOLD|bold edit]] without prior discussion, but if disputed should be discussed further and eventually taken to AfD if no consensus can be found. If the article has relevant information cited to reliable sources, it may be appropriate to merge content.

'''[[WP:Draftify|Draftify]]''' – sending articles to draftspace is an option that should be used only for suspected [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest]], if you yourself are planning on improving the article, or if the article is for a future event and is likely to eventually be notable. An additional reason to use draftify is if content in the article can be repurposed for a different article about a notable subject (e.g. a non-notable author's biography may have content that could be used for an article about their notable debut novel){{efn|This is not the full remit of uses of the draftify tool as laid out [[WP:NPPDRAFT|in the NPP tutorial]]. In the interest of steering new page reviewers clear of disputes with other editors, this guide includes a very sparing list of use-cases for draftification, as the process's usage in other contexts can be controversial.}}

==General advice for evaluating sources==

Line 32:

===Inaccessible and non-English sources===

{{See also|Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers with language specialties}}

{{shortcut|WP:NPPLANG}}

Remember that when evaluating articles, [[WP:NEXIST|notability is based on the possibility of the existence of coverage in reliable sources]]. If a notability judgment comes down to whether or not an inaccessible or unreadable source contains significant coverage of a subject, make an educated guess as to whether the source is likely to contain such coverage, based on its title and publication details. If need be, it is reasonable to ask the editor that added the sources to provide samples or translations of the content, although this may potentially be non-trivial effort for the other editor. The extent to which you require the other editor to provide verifiable scans, as opposed to mere transcriptions should be based on standard [[WP:AGF|AGF]] principles.

For most languages other than English that you're likely to come across in article submissions, Google Translate is sufficient for assessing whether a reference has significant coverage of a subject and verifying important claims. It may be insufficient for assessing the reliability of a source, and it may also be difficult to search for additional coverage of a subject in a language that you lack proficiency in. Consider leaving articles in unfamiliar languages to editors that are more proficient, although at a certain point our team of reviewers only has so many language proficiencies and you may need to make decisions about such articles with incomplete information. Editors interested in spending a significant amount of time reviewing pages may want to consider studying additional languages. Even minimal proficiency in a language can be extremely helpful. In the case of languages that use other alphabets, it can be useful even just to learn how to phonetically read the alphabet so that you can identify names.

====Composition of language proficiencies across the top 30 most active reviewers in 2019====

Counts are based on information on editor's user pages and likely under represent actual counts. As relatively little proficiency is required to help out with new page reviewing, even level-1 proficiencies were counted.

{{col-begin}}

{{col-1-of-4}}

*Spanish 6

*French 5

*German 4

*Italian 3

{{col-2-of-4}}

*Hebrew 2

*Japanese 2

*Portuguese 2

*Russian 2

{{col-3-of-4}}

*Turkish 2

*Arabic 1

*Chinese 1

*Dutch 1

{{col-3-of-4}}

*Sinhala 1

*Tamil 1

*Vietnamese 1

*Yiddish 1

{{col-end}}

==Subject-specific guides==

Line 66 ⟶ 41:

===Biographies===

{{see also|WP:NBIO}}

Biographies of living people are one of the most problem-rife types of new articles due to people attempting to use the site as an outlet for self-promotion. A dead giveaway for likely COI is an infobox photo that looks like a glossy [[:File:Michelle Borromeo Actor Headshots 30.jpg|professional headshot]] instead of a more candid photo, ''especially'' if the headshot is attributed to the editor that wrote the article as "own work", which suggests that either the editor met the subject in person or filed the image permissions incorrectly for an image that they were given (provided that a reverse-image search confirms that the image is not available elsewhere onlinieonline). When dealing with potentially-promotional articles about subjects that are notable, be sure to check for additional sources online, as a draft written by a paid editor may intentionally skip over significant controversies or scandals involving the subject. Accurately updating the article may in some cases be a more fitting punishment for would-be promotionalists than deleting it.

Biographies for long-dead figures are much less likely to be created for promotional reasons. Notability guidelines are often relaxed for historical figures for whom there may be few surviving sources despite having clear claims to importance.

Line 123 ⟶ 98:

====Ethnic groups====

Most ethnic groups that are verifiably distinct subjects are notable, but poorly sourced articles on these subjects may be better off merged into a higher-level article, if one is available. Immigrant groups in a specific region (e.g. [[Italians in the United States]]) are less likely to meet GNG just by virtue of existing, but can often be merged or at least redirected to higher-level articles on immigration or diaspora grops (e.g. [[Immigration to Japan]], [[Greek diaspora]] instead of [[Ukrainian immigration to Japan]], [[Greeks in Ho Chi Minh City]]) Academic sources are strongly preferred, but some non-academic publications may be usable, and are likely to indicate that additional, more reliable coverage exists. Potentially contentious claims should be referred to OR, FRINGE, or RS noticeboards as needed.

====Medicine====

Line 145 ⟶ 120:

*[[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirects|The new pages patrol guide to reviewing redirects]]

*[[WT:NPR|The new page reviewer noticeboard]]

== Notes ==

{{Notelist}}